Juror shares his opinions on the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial, subsequent verdict
The juror says Heard's emotional response during the trial left the jury "uncomfortable"
Aux News Johnny Depp
An anonymous juror from the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial has stepped forward to share his opinion on the overall trial and verdict. In the new interview, the unnamed juror discusses feeling “uncomfortable” when a visibly distressed and crying Heard took to the stand to recall the alleged abuse she experienced in her marriage.
Though the juror did not reveal his name, face, or juror number, he was one of five men on the seven-person jury, and he claims he wasn’t only one who didn’t feel comfortable with Heard’s emotional response.
“The crying, the facial expressions that she had, the staring at the jury—all of us were very uncomfortable…,” the juror tells Good Morning America. “She would answer one question and she would be crying and then two seconds later she would turn ice cold. Some of us used the expression ‘crocodile tears.’”
Meanwhile, the juror says he found Depp to be more “believable,” because of his “stable” demeanor. “He just seemed a little more real in terms of how he was responding to questions,” he says. “His emotional state was very stable throughout.”
When it comes to social media, the juror says while he doesn’t use Twitter or Facebook, others on the jury had access to the sites. The trial gained a fervent following on social media—a point Heard brought up during her own recent interview with Savannah Guthrie, saying “I think [the] vast majority of this trial was played out on social media. I think that this trial is an example of that gone haywire, gone amok, and the jury’s not immune to that.”
However the juror insists that the jury “followed the evidence,” and that those who did use social media sites “made a point not to talk about it.”
He concludes the interview with this: “What I think is truthful is that they were both abusive to each other,” he says. “I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong… but to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”
Earlier this week, Heard said she doesn’t blame the jury for their conclusions. “I don’t blame them. I actually understand,” Heard said. “He’s a beloved character and people feel they know him. He’s a fantastic actor.”
441 Comments
I don’t think continuing to rehash this shitshow helps anyone.
Oh, you’re only saying that because it’s true.
Hashing it the first time didn’t help anyone, but here we are.
Please pass the hash.
You know whats really good on hash? A fried egg with a runny yolk…delicious!
Puff puff pass.
Don’t fuck up the rotation!
lol
It helps the AV get their clicks.
Its clicks help the AV Club.
I don’t understand why “stable demeanor/emotional state” would make you think “telling the truth,” under the circumstances; if anything, it would make me think, “practiced liar.”
Which is also an absurd take.
Crediting this to The A.V. Club is a smart move. Now we can’t blame any one person for refusing to shut up about this.
“What I think is truthful is that they were both abusive to each other,” he says. “I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong… but to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”So, Heard’s claim is that she is a “public figure representing domestic abuse,” and you concluded that she was, indeed, the subject of abuse…ergo she’s an unstable lying harpy. That’s some airtight logic there, chief. Really “followed the evidence.”
Also, she didn’t have to prove anything. HE had to prove that she was lying. The fact a juror in the case didn’t understand this is maddening.
Though truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation, so if her defense was that what she said was true, she would have to prove that.
oh my god THIS ALL DAY. Came down here to say this very thing. This is exactly the problem with a case like this being tried to a jury. This juror (and, I’m sure, the others) viewed their role as determining whether Heard “proved” that she was abused. But that’s not what was at issue! DEPP had to prove that the WaPo piece was defamatory to him AND that Heard sought it’s publication with actual malice … meaning with a deliberate intent to harm him. The language of the piece ALONE seems to belie that point – it doesn’t mention him by name and, at best, barely references past domestic abuse in the most vanilla way. My personal view is that it gets overturned on appeal. There was virtually no evidence of defamation presented at the trial. And this juror himself inadvertently recognizes that. If he thinks she was abused and so was Depp, then when she said in the piece that she was a victim of domestic abuse, well even this juror believes that to be true!
My personal view is that it gets overturned on appeal.
Strongly agreed. Honestly, I think even Depp’s attorneys are probably surprised they won this case. The point was never about winning, it was about dragging his accuser through the mud and rehabbing his public image (Which he realistically seems to have gotten for now).With that in mind, the damage is essentially already done. Even if she wins on appeal, Depp’s no poorer than he was and he’s got a rabid fanbase in his backpocket. Honestly, if I were him, I’d run for office while the getting’s good.God, I feel gross thinking about all of this.
Honestly, I think even Depp’s attorneys are probably surprised they won this case. 100%. I’ll bet his lawyers were shocked that his claims even survived a motion to dismiss. If winning was the objective, I think any lawyer worth his or her salt would have passed on pursuing a defamation claim after a cursory reading of the op-ed. I strongly believe that a win was not contemplated, but rather was a pleasant surprise. And you’re spot on … doesn’t matter what happens next. He accomplished what he wanted to accomplish by dragging her through the mud in public.
If the word of other lawyers is to be believed, then Depp’s lawyers weren’t surpised.
*stood up to someone who abused him trying to drag his name through the mud, when you feel she should’ve gotten away with doing so without, as the juror here stated, compelling evidence.
sorry it’s inconvenient to you that an abuse victim who has a penis stood up for themselves. they were both abusive, but abuse is wrong no matter what genitalia the victim has.
You obviously never saw Depps evidence.
Poor, poor abusive Amber Heard, who gets a pass because vagina.
Evil, wicked abuse victim Johnny Depp, who gets snark I guess because penis, and standing up to someone extending their abuse of him through trying to drag HIS name through the mud.
do y’all hear yourselves? They were both abused and abusive. Abuse doesn’t become excusable depending on the genitals of the person involved. The double standards here are disgusting.
There isn’t even credible evidence that he did abuse her. Many people who have actually been subjected to narcissistic abuse recognize her as the abuser and his reactions, which, when coming from a female survivor, are normalized as “reactive” (as they should be), but for him, many people are characterizing it as “mutual abuse.” It wasn’t. The juror who was interviewed wasn’t even clear about how it was mutual, because all he said about Depp is that they yelled at each other when they argued. Yes, until you realize you can never, ever win with a narcissist, trying to counter their lies easily ends up escalating into shouting matches. I think he is definitely being subjected to a double standard. There are other men who have been abused by their female partners who are posting online now. Believe it or not, there are men who do not hit back when a woman hits them, throws things at them, or stabs them.
And you’re not a lawyer and have no real insight into the legal aspects of this right? So really, your thought that it “gets overturned on appeal” carries no weight whatsoever?
Lawyer here. The chance of it being overturned are almost zero. Theres just nothing legally wrong with the case. A jury is allowed to not believe a defendant (or plaintiff).Its pretty much over but the waiting.
The juror (and the others, it seems) believed some form of abuse was committed by both of them.
They did not feel that the case was made that Depp was physically abusive.
This really isn’t hard when the article states it so clearly.
Lol it’ll be “overturned on appeal”? You have zero idea what you’re talking about. It’s laughable
The appeal isn’t a retrial. Nobody is going to review the evidence or lack thereof. It’s about how the trial was conducted. Also, it’s a civil case, so juries are given much more leeway in their decisions typically than in criminal cases which are much more regulated. I would be surprised if the appeal is won based on the jury got it wrong. But I was surprised by the verdict, and I am not a lawyer, nor a legal expert.
All day and LOUDER for the people in the back please. It was not denied that emotional and psychological abuse was endured by Heard, caused by Depp.
On the face of the language, and body of the article, the Washington Post Op-Ed was not defamatory. The notion that Depp’s reputation was damaged by being seen as a wife beater was an existing one, before the publication date in 2018.So why this Washington Post piece? Because that would mean the trial would be in Virginia, able to have the trial livestreamed, and mobilize the Depp legion (aided by paid trolls, bots, and creators) to drag Heard through the mud, and shift the narrative from: “Is it defamatory?” to “I’m not the abuser, she is!”Depp fought to win the war, and not the battle – and he won.
You have absolutely zero insight into this and are embarrassing yourself
Very little chance of it being overturned. Almost nothing. And it doesn’t matter now, because the general public is firmly against her. Her career is over. Hell, this whole juror thing is nonsense without positive ID.
She was suing for defamation as well
Oh so its guilty till proven innocent?!?! U with the extreme leftist douchebag party aren’t you? No SHE had to prove that he fuckin beat her.. she failed to do that. Anyone can say anything…. Prove it. Only then do you carry some weight. Period
You’re wrong. She started with her “standing up for story” she recorded everything, made pictures of mirrors in Australia after the aftermath beeing assaulted but she didn’t tell anyone or show anyone after it happened?! It is a shame to all women who have really been assaulted to start with such a breaking story….! This is malice and shows she really needs some help… There are many other recordings where she is yelling and on raging because Johnny is running away from her during fights…. Australia recording where she says ” have I done this”… (Johnny’s Finger) so would you please see the whole and not only the half…. Think about it!!!
The fact that you think “she didn’t have to prove anything” is pretty indicative of you not having any insight into this whatsoever
I’m trying to make sense of this whole thing. Please forgive me if I’m off base here and help me to understand, but here’s how I it seems to me that the juror came to that conclusion: Amber says to the public that she was abused, and the public infers she means that she was abused by Johnny. If Johnny has to prove she was lying to sustain his suit, the only way to do that is to go through her story and demonstrate where and how she lied. She is therefore asked to both describe the abuse she alleges and to provide any evidence she has of that abuse to substantiate her allegation. Why? If she can prove the instances of abuse she alleges, Johnny’s defamation suit is bunk and he loses. If she cannot prove the instances of abuse she alleges, his suit stands. The question at hand was not whether or not it was likely that she endured some form of abuse at his hand, nor whether she at any point might have abused him. The question was whether or not she was convincingly able to describe and provide evidence for specific instances of abuse she and her legal team decided to allege against Johnny. The juror determined that she was not able to convincingly prove what she alleged. Had she made other specific allegations, there may have been a different outcome. Unfortunately, to the juror, she failed to substantiate the story she chose to tell.It seems like the juror is basically saying that Amber seems to have exaggerated or made up so much of what she has alleged that she unfairly damaged Johnny’s reputation. She was attempting to connect with the jury and get them on her side when she testified, but for some reason, it had the opposite effect. They gave her a small (insignificant in context) award, which seemed to be them saying “I mean, something happened to you, so here you go.”For my part, it’s hard to believe that Johnny never did anything to harm her when he was inebriated or in a horrible mood or however else you want to describe his behavior. Amber does come off as vindictive, but I can’t tell how much is really there versus whatever weird biases or distortions of perception I’m coming to this with. Somehow he came off more credible than she did. More human tragedy tabloid fodder for entertainment.
The award for Amber was because JD’s (former?) attorney made a statement that she and her friends messed up the penthouse in between 911 calls, to stage it to look like she had been abused when the cops came for a second time. There wasn’t evidence to support those specific allegations. They did not rule in her favor for statements by that lawyer that her abuse claims were a hoax. Symbolically I think they probably were throwing her a bone – a $2 million bone – or maybe trying to satisfy a juror who felt AH should get something.There is quite a bit of commentary on YouTube from attorneys who have followed the trial. Some are right-wing, others are not. I like Emily D Baker. https://www.youtube.com/c/TheEmilyDBaker/videos There’s a lot more in-depth info (plus the usual click-bait) available on YouTube. I think you got the gist of why JD’s claims were found to be true, and 2 of her 3 were not. I also came away with the understanding that if her allegations of abuse were true, they were not defamatory, so to prove defamation, they were making the case that her allegations were not true. And it was based on “a preponderance of evidence,” not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
She was caught in lies multiple times trying to embellish her storys against him 😂, have you ever served on a jury before? I have, jury foreman in a criminal case where a couple had relationship problems and the girlfriend destroyed his car and home for cheating on her. What he did was wrong, but what she did was illegal. However, we set her free when the man was caught lying to embellish his story against her, lying taints the evidence, and as a juror, you can only go off the evidence.
She was lying, case closed.
Good basis for an appeal I’d say.
Not really, no. Don’t be be surprised when such appeals are denied. They likely will be.
Your opinion means nothing
I don’t believe that’s true. This wasn’t a criminal case
If his belief was that they were both beating up each other, then that’s not being the victim of abuse. That’s being in a fight with somebody.
I’ll preface this by saying I think that the “mutually abusive” line is bullshit, and that eventually lashing out at your abuser does not constitute a “mutually abusive” relationship. But:“abusive to each other” =/= “being in a fight with somebody”Regardless, again, the language at issue is that Heard is a “public figure representing abuse.” Is Heard not a public figure representing abuse? Did Depp and his lawyers prove that Heard was not a public figure representing abuse?
Yeah it’s certainly fair enough for you not to believe it, but my point was just that “a public figure representing domestic abuse” was not what the juror believed she was, so you can’t say that that’s what he concluded. He didn’t believe she was the victim of abuse. He didn’t believe that she “eventually lashed out at her abuser.” If you don’t believe she was abused, then no, she is not a public figure representing abuse. So can argue with me over whether she was or she wasn’t (actually you can’t because I have no idea and I won’t argue it lol), but the fact is the jury did not believe she was, and yes, Depp and his lawyers proved to the jury’s satisfaction that she was not a public figure representing abuse.
So, according to you, and according to how you think this juror thinks, in cases of “mutual abuse” neither party is abused. No one has been abused. Got it.“So can argue with me over whether she was or she wasn’t…but the fact is the jury did not believe she was, and yes, Depp and his lawyers proved to the jury’s satisfaction that she was not a public figure representing abuse.”Sure, and I’m saying their decision is a) wrong, b) irrational, and c) indicates they don’t understand what words mean.
It’s not according to how I think the juror thinks. I’m looking at what he said and what he concluded and what the verdict was. And yes, the juror concluded that she was not abused, which you can also see from the extended version of his comments which someone else posted above. You’re absolutely allowed to disagree with the verdict, though. That’s certainly your right and you wouldn’t be the first to disagree with a jury verdict. I didn’t watch the entirety of the trial so I couldn’t say either way.
1) Judging by the extended quote the juror concluded she wasn’t physically abused. 2) If the juror concluded the relationship was “mutually abusive” then it is logically inconsistent for him to turn around and also conclude that Heard wasn’t abused. (Which was the point of my initial comment.) If he didn’t think anyone was abused then he shouldn’t have described their relationship as abusive, mutual or otherwise.3) Regardless of whether or not he thinks Heard was abused, what about the trial led him to conclude that Heard didn’t represent abuse in the public consciousness? The allegations are hardly new and a judge in a previous high profile case determined that Depp wasn’t defamed in being called a “wife beater.”
1) Yes. And she claimed on the stand that she was physically abused. Therefore the jury concluded that she was lying.2) Not really, if he included emotional abuse in “mutually abusive,” or if he was using “mutually abusive,” as I did, as shorthand for “they both hit each other” which he doesn’t think of as “abuse.”3) Because you can’t “represent” something that you aren’t a part of? Because the jury concluded that you can’t be a representative of a class that you don’t share experiences with. And what does it even mean to “represent abuse in the public consciousness”? She never represented abuse to me, even before this trial. Also, that wasn’t the only statement under consideration.
Have you actually read the op-ed in question? It’s about the repercussions women face for publicly accusing powerful men of abuse. In publicly accusing Depp of abuse, and in being the subject of numerous news stories and high profile court cases regarding domestic abuse, Heard came to represent the issue to many people. Hence why the op-ed was published in the first place. That is the quite obvious context of the statement, which remains true regardless of whether or not Depp physically abused her (he did). The other statements, that she “spoke up against sexual violence” and that she witnessed first hand “how institutions protect men accused of abuse” are also true regardless of whether or not she was abused (she was).
“Heard came to represent the issue to many people.”That’s certainly something you’re allowed to believe! I won’t argue with you if you believe it.
Again, did you read the op-ed? After reading the op-ed, did you interpret the statement differently?
I didn’t read it, no. But how I did or didn’t or would or would have interpreted it isn’t really relevant, is it? I didn’t hear all of the evidence. If all you had to do to determine liability was read the op-ed, I have to wonder why the lawyers and judge decided to go to the trouble of an expensive weeks-long trial years in preparation.
Well, all right, lawyer, walk me through the process here, since I’m clearly ignorant. How would Depp’s team go about demonstrating that statements like Heard “spoke up against sexual violence” and saw how “institutions protected men accused of abuse” are false and published with the intent to damage Depp’s reputation.Or don’t. I’m happy to leave it at “I didn’t read it, no.”
Okay, so if you’re asking me to devise an entire legal strategy off the cuff, normally people pay me for that, but I’ll play along. First of all, if you want to know how Depp’s team would go about demonstrating the statements were false, why don’t you just go re-watch the whole trial? They showed you how they went about demonstrating that defamation occurred. Go look at it and see what they did.Second, they wouldn’t have actually had to prove the statements were false exactly. They could have argued defamation by implication, meaning if the statements were facially true but led to a defamatory (false) implication, that counts.
Can I ask a few questions, for clarity’s sake? Just because I think a lot of the discourse on this thread is sort of slipping past itself.
To be clear, I’m not trying to argue with you or anything, I think we
have a pretty similar position on this case (i.e. we don’t have one), but I think this might clear up some of the confusion.So… bear with me here.
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that Heard and Depp were in a mutually
abusive relationship where they both did shit to each other and are
equally culpable. The statement at issue is: ‘I am a public figure representing domestic abuse.’Given this, we have two possible interpretations:
1) That, because Heard was technically abused by Depp (even if she also gave abuse back) her statement was correct. This is, obviously, the position of the people you’re arguing with here.
2) That, because Heard was also abusing Depp, she’s guilty of a lie by omission.As
a non-expert, it would seem to me that (2) has a problem (again, this is all assuming mutual abuse), because it
makes the case less about the statement itself but what wasn’t said, or
what wasn’t contextualized. And while I could absolutely understand the
harm that would be done to Depp’s reputation by failing to mention that
they were both both victim and abuser, it also feels like the
statement in and of itself would be technically true and thus not defamatory. As well as this, lies of
omission doesn’t seem to be a standard for defamation used in any other
situation – Project Veritas, for instance, would surely have been sued
into oblivion otherwise, no?I think this part is what’s causing some confusion here, because some of your posts seem to justify the verdict as: ‘The jury didn’t believe she was abused,’ while other posts seem to indicate that point (2) is a valid reason to find someone guilty of defamation, which seems to be what people on here are taking issue with.So, my questions would be:1) Is my understanding of all the above correct?
2) Is a lie of omission grounds for defamation in certain cases? Would it be justified, in this instance, if Depp and Heard really were mutually abusive? Or does it not really matter and it’s all down to what the jury decides at the end of the day?
3) Finally, could you not argue that Heard being ‘a public figure representing domestic abuse’ was true regardless of whether or not she was abused – since, at the time, this whole controversy was pretty well-known, even if the facts weren’t agreed upon?I realize I’m asking a lot, so no worries if you can’t be arsed to answer every question in-depth or whatever. A yes/no on its own would be helpful for the sake of this discussion. But I’d be interested in any further details you could give. Thanks for your time.
The lie of omission is key because that can be interpreted as defamation by implication. The false implication (at least the jury believed it was false) that Johnny Depp abused her seems to be what was found to be defamatory. How you get from “she lied (by omission) about the fact that she also hit him” to “what happened to her therefore doesn’t qualify as abuse” isn’t necessarily a legal question. What is “abuse” can vary from person to person. To me personally, if two people are beating up on each other, I wouldn’t necessarily buy that one of them is a victim and the other isn’t, or that either of them is, without a whole lot of other context. I think if she wanted to convince the jury of that, she should have (and maybe she did—I didn’t watch the whole thing) made a showing that she hit him in self-defense or something, and apparently she and her legal team weren’t able to do that effectively. So anyway, long story short, that’s how I think the lie of omission hurt her in this case, on top of the fact that the jury apparently didn’t perceive her as a trustworthy person. They didn’t believe abuse happened, and therefore they concluded that the implication that he abused her and that she was a victim was defamatory.Obviously people can disagree with that conclusion, but those appear to be the steps from my very cursory examination.
Okay, gotcha. Thanks for your reply.
you’re literally arguing that because of the perceived ‘importance’ of the piece, someone who feels they were wrongfully accused has no right to defend themselves? somehow who THEMSELVES, as you and others are ignoring because penis, claims to have been victimized? do you hear how monstrous that sounds? if she’s lying, then frankly, anyone who supports women being believed and supported when they accuse someone of abuse should be shaming her into oblivion for doing so, not looking the other way because of her gender. what about the message this attitude send to male victims of abuse? ‘shut up, no one cares?’ so very progressive.
i’m sorry you find this morally inconvenient, but you can’t just say whatever you like about people with zero need to back it up and with zero repercussions. thank God, or else even more innocent people would be in prison than we already have in this country.
Guess I’m a horrible person, but my sympathy for abuse victims and condemnation for their abusers isn’t conditional on gender. they’re both victims and both abusers here. guess that sucks for your double standard, but it remains true.
It’s like you’re physically unable to stop dumb shit from constantly coming out of your mouth
Lawyer here.What you think is literally unimportant. A jury is allowed to not believe her claims or testimony. If they find she lied on anything (and she did, plenty), they are well within their rights to disregard her whole testimony, and are instructed so during instruction, in every trial.
No, that’s that what ElectricSheep is saying. In a case like this where she is the defense, the burden of proof is on her and her crappy lawyers did not do a good job convincing the jury of that proof, nor did they do a good job coaching her on testifying on the stand enough to convince a jury. This happens all the time in court cases. It isn’t an internet comment section where you can say and accuse someone of something and the other side is supposed to automatically accept it.
In defamation cases like this, I believe the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the publication was wrong, it was published with malice, and it resulted in damages to his income/reputation/etc. I don’t think the burden of proof is on the defendant, Heard, to prove that she was abused.The malice part is kind of a wash, really. It washes out based on whether you believe she was abused or not. If she was abused, then publishing she was a victim of DV means she can’t have been saying she was abused with malice, because it’s the truth. If she wasn’t abused, then the only way she could be publishing that she was a victim of DV was maliciously – i.e., that she was lying and knew she was lying. So the malice part is kind of a given based on the first element in a case like this.
Your “belief” is wrong in this particular case since it was Depp who sued Amber because of the WaPo op-ed piece. The burden is on her to prove to the court and the jury that everything she was saying in that article was true. She counter-sued, so that put even more burden of proof on her.And no, publishing and just saying she was a victim of abuse, or because she won a prior case in another country does not automatically make it the truth in a court of law. You need evidence to convince a jury that it is, which she failed to adequately do because as Electric Sheep correctly pointed out, her lawyers did a terrible job of that and she herself lost credibility when it came out that she never fulfilled her pledge to donate her divorce settlement from Depp to charity and basically lied about leaking those photos to TMZ. Its the US legal system 101 and how you feel about Amber or Depp is immaterial to that.
I didn’t believe Heard’s testimony and didn’t say or assert any of the other stuff you argued against in your second paragraph, so I’ll ignore that.Heard’s counterpoint required proof, true. But my understanding is the person who brings the action – Depp – generally has the burden of proof. In this case, the burden was on him to argue that a) the defendant published something untrue; b) she did so with malice; c) that the mistruth published caused him damage. As you call it “legal system 101″, the burden of proof is usually on a plaintiff – Depp’s role. So, I believe it is actually you who is wrong. Her defense should have been arguing against each of his positions – that what she was published was true, that she didn’t publish it maliciously, and that it didn’t harm him. I’d agree with you that her team did a pretty poor job overall. But I also think that Depp went into this action mostly wanting to win the court of public opinion in a case that was an uphill battle because of the burden.
Heard’s counterpoint required proof, true. But my understanding is the person who brings the action – Depp – generally has the burden of proof. Not in defamatory cases where the defendant relies on truth as a defence. In this case, the burden was on him to argue that a) the defendant published something untrueThat’s not how it works.
That is how it works, though. Of course Heard is relying on the truth as a defense, but Depp is the initiator of legal action, and in general, the plaintiff is usually the one with the burden of proof except in rare circumstances.This comment section is a microcosm of it, in fact. I published a statement. You disagree with it, and levy a charge against me that I’m incorrect. The burden is on you to prove that it is incorrect. In a case like this, both sides are vying for the jury to see their side as credible because it is in the interests of either side to be seen as telling the truth, because both can’t be telling the truth. So, yeah, obviously it’s in Heard’s interest to argue that what she’s saying is true, and to provide evidence of it. But it’s really the burden of the plaintiff to demonstrate that the statement that was published was inaccurate and defamatory.
That is how it works, though. Of course Heard is relying on the truth as a defense, but Depp is the initiator of legal action, and in general, the plaintiff is usually the one with the burden of proof except in rare circumstances.This IS just one such circumstance. This comment section is a microcosm of it, in fact.That statement illustrates your misconception. The comment section isn’t a court. So, yeah, obviously it’s in Heard’s interest to argue that what she’s saying is true, and to provide evidence of it. But it’s really the burden of the plaintiff to demonstrate that the statement that was published was inaccurate and defamatory.Not how it works. If it is prime facie defamatory, because it says Depp did something bad, then the only way that is ok is by showing the statement was true.
Can you provide a link instead of just insisting your right?
You’re still wrong on almost all of it. Because like everyone else here, you aren’t actually reading or understanding what i’m saying or how even what happened during the trial or how libel suits in general work because your biases towards Depp, so you don’t care at all about anything else other than Depp should’ve been auto guilty. In a civil libel case, the onus is on the defense to show that what they said was true, and they met that standard by being credible and by presenting evidence. You seem to forget and want to forget that it was Depp that sued Amber for her writing that op-ed in the WaPo with the ACLU. The onus is therefore primarily on Amber, as a defendant, to prove to the jury that the op-ed is true and that Depp had no grounds to accuse her of lying/libel. She and her lawyers, and apparently you internet commenters thought that the previous libel suit in the UK would be good enough to convince the jury that Depp has no grounds to sue for libel. The key difference in the new trial is that it’s in a new jurisdiction so the burden of proof is different. Especially since Heard is counter-suing, so it was relevant if she was also abusive, lying herself, and not credible, which Depp successfully did due to Amber’s past and current behavior, which he was counting on, but Amber’s lawyers didn’t for some dumb reason. That’s why Amber should’ve pressed charges against him instead of countersuing. If it were a criminal case, then Depp would’ve been 100% on the defense.Amber got all kinds of wrong and bad advice and defense from the ACLU, her lawyers, and the media, and paid the price for it. Yes, its hard for abuse victims to come forward to press formal charges, but that’s the only way to get a case and investigation in your favor.
I didn’t believe Heard – which I’m pretty sure I had stated already in a prior message. And, based on the evidence I saw, I wasn’t surprised that the verdict came out like it did. Your opinion that I’m biased against Depp is just factually inaccurate. I’m not biased against him, and actually found he seemed to have a more credible telling of what transpired between them than her, when comparing his testimony to the audio statements, compared to Heard’s testimony to those same audio recordings. So, no, buddy, I’m not biased against Depp.Beyond your rationale for why I’m arguing something, you’re also wrong about the burden of proof. The onus is not on the defense to prove that what they said is factually accurate. It’s certainly in their best interests to try to demonstrate that what they said was true. But in libel cases, the charge against the defendant fails if the plaintiff fails to prove that the information that was published was inaccurate. If, for instance, the Washington Post published an article saying that Robot_Jox can’t read, and then you sued for libel but you failed to prove that you could, in fact, read, then Washington Post would win that case. They don’t have to prove that you can’t read, because they didn’t bring that legal action, you did – and the impetus would be on you to prove that the statement that was published was both wrong, and that it was neglectful (i.e., that they should have known you could read). With a public figure like Depp, the standard on the plaintiff is even higher, because there’s so much shit published about them that neglect’s no longer the bar – malice is. So in a case like this, Depp had to prove that not only was Heard lying, but that she published it maliciously. In this case, that’s a moot point really, because if she was lying about the abuse, of course she couldn’t be neglectful and mistakenly accuse her husband of years of abuse, she would have had to be doing it maliciously if it weren’t true.All the same, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. That’s very often how it is… it’s how it is in most criminal trials, and it’s how it is in most civil cases, except for some less common instances.
Because all you keep doing over and over again is show that you don’t understand how a defamation tort/suit works. If you accuse me of libel, the burden of proof is on me to prove to in a court of law that I what I said is true and not libelous. It’s not a “best interest” thing. It’s literally what you are required to do. Depp accused Heard of lying about in a newspaper. Therefore, Heard has to prove she wasn’t. Simple as that. The issue in Amber’s case is because that she lied about a whole bunch of other things, and that her behavior and testimony wasn’t good, her credibility in the eyes of the jury was damaged, and that’s why the ruled against her. That’s the simple reality of what happened and not we say on here or whether or not you agree changes that, period.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation“a plaintiff must
show four things: 1)
a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or
communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at
least negligence;
and 4) damages,
or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the
statement.“Most states assume that a speaker who defames another
necessarily has the requisite guilty
state of mind. In Levinsky’s,
Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122 (1st Cir. 1997), the
court held that in Maine, all
defamation claims need showing of fault, which requires the plaintiff to prove
that the defendant was at least negligent.”
My other post had some garbled formatting. But, here you go, taken from the site linked below, from Cornell’s law school.a plaintiff must show
four things: 1)
a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or
communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at
least negligence; and 4) damages,
or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the
statement.“Most states
assume that a speaker who defames another necessarily has the requisite guilty
state of mind. In Levinsky’s,
Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122 (1st Cir.1997), the court
held that in Maine, all
defamation claims need showing of fault, which requires the plaintiff to prove
that the defendant was at least negligent.” Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Yes, you’re good at randomly Googling links, but you’re bad at comprehending and interpreting them. Because in your link, it also says: Different states vary in their anti-defamation statutes. As such, courts in different states will interpret defamation laws differently, and defamation statutes will vary somewhat from state to state. And in the case of Virginia, they have anti-SLAPP laws, designed to put less of the onus on the plaintiff, which Depp was very well aware of when he sued her in Virginia (having the Post located there also helped).
Also, defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation in many states. In some states, truth is a defense, which was this case in this instance.
But go on and keep replying and replying showing that you’re not a very good or knowledgeable internet lawyer.
you’re literally arguing that something as subjective as ‘tHe TrUtH’ should mean case closed. numerous people here have parsed the definitions at play and you keep on basically saying ‘but this happened, so the end!’
“If you accuse me of libel, the burden of proof is on me to prove to in a court of law that I what I said is true and not libelous.”
This is true in the English legal system, but not in the U.S. In the American legal system, the burden is always on the plaintiff to prove their case, not for the defendant to disprove it. The burden is even higher where the plaintiff is a public figure, like Depp, who must prove that the defamatory falsehood was made with “actual malice” or “an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.” See Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 155 (1967).Source: I am a lawyer.
“I didn’t believe Heard’s testimony”Why not?
I wrote a big reply, but it never actually posted, and so I had to rewrite it. So this version of my response is a little shorter and less considered, but hopefully still addresses the question.I went in thinking I’d believe her testimony, and that
Depp was washed up, and abusive. But, I found myself not believing her mostly
in relation to audio recordings, and her explanation for them. Her testimony
didn’t seem to align well with the evidence presented at times.For example, two photos were shown with a red marking on the
face that could be a small bruise. She said they were two different photos, but
one clearly has more saturation and is colorized to be redder, but an
examination of the photos shows that every hair strand, etc., is in the exact
same place across the two photos. They’re identical, and it’s unlikely they
were taken at a different time (her testimony was that in one, the light was
off, and another, it was on, but the hair strands are in exactly the same
place, which seems unlikely). But, that’s a little thing, and I ddin’t hold
that against her credibility that much.Some items are more consequential. In one audio recording,
the two are arguing over the bathroom incident. Depp says in his testimony that
they were fighting and he went into a bathroom to retreat, and he closes the
door. She follows him and pounds on the door and is opening it, and he’s
holding it closed. He closes it, but hears her exclaim because her toe is under
the door. He bends down to check it, she opens the door, and the open door hits
him in the head. Then when the door is open, she punches him in the face. The
audio recording has a conversation between them where he’s laying out those
facts pretty consistent with his testimony, and Heard doesn’t not only not
refute that she hit him, but she says she hit him, but didn’t punch him, and
then tells him he’s been around a lot time, he’s been in a lot of fights, she
didn’t deck him, and she doesn’t know exactly what formulation her hand was in,
but she didn’t punch him, she hit him. Her explanation of that testimony is
that she was acquiescing to Depp’s version of events in the audio recording in
order to avoid further abuse, but that she didn’t hit or punch him or hit him
with the door. But that doesn’t really jive with what’s heard on the audio
recording, which is an artifact that was taken closer in time to the sequence
of events, and is ostensibly a private conversation between them rather than
testimony in a courtroom in a contentious legal preceding. Her version of
events strained credulity and appeared as if she was trying to explain away her
behavior and words in the audio recording in a way that didn’t quite align with
what we heard.But another example. The two are heard in an audio recording
arguing and then Depp saying he has to go, he’s going to leave, please let him
leave, etc. Heard says to him that he can’t go, and please don’t go, etc. He
insists he has to, and then she pleads and says it’s literally killing her,
physically killing her, that he says he’s going to leave. Her version of events
is that she was pleading with him not to go because she knew he was going to go
into a house and do drugs, which presumably meant he’d come back and abuse her,
because he was often high during his abuse. If true, that’s heartbreaking. But,
she makes no mention of drugs and doesn’t really sound like she’s asking him to
stay because she’s worried about that, but, maybe, giving her the benefit of
the doubt. But Depp’s testimony is that she had a tendency in fights to want
them to duke it out then and there, for hours, but that he wanted to retreat
and get some space. This can be heard in the bathroom audio tape before too,
given that he was retreating to the bathroom to get some space. It’s corroborated
in this one, and his testimony is that he just wants to leave the car and take
a breath and do what he needs to do. His psychiatrist that evaluated Heard also
indicated that her diagnosis was that Heard had Histrionic Personality
Disorder, and some key symptoms of that are attention-seeking, exaggeration of
affect, and dramatic gestures for one’s feelings, etc. Heard’s “you’re
literally killing me” seems pretty consistent with that diagnosis, as are some other
aspects of her presentation and testimony (and the audio tapes themselves). These
things aren’t smoking guns, and don’t mean that there’s 100% certainty that he
didn’t abuse her, and of course, if she had HPD but also was pleading with him
because she thought she’d be abused, that’d be absolutely heartbreaking. But
ultimately, a few of these things added up to make me question the veracity of
some of her other claims, given I felt her stories were often convenient for
her version of events, but weren’t corroborated by some of the most compelling
evidence – which was the audio recordings themselves. Over time, I felt myself
questioning the veracity of her claims. Does that mean I have certainty she
wasn’t abused? No. I also tend to think that both of them have some blame, and
both are damaged individuals.I don’t begrudge people who believe differently. I also think the people championing Depp as a hero are wrong, that the people wishing death or threatening Heard or whatever are dipshits, etc.
But on that tape she literally claimed that she was terrified he was going to kill her because he was bigger and stronger than he was. And are you just discounting the degree to which he tried to control her career or the way he talked about her in texts to his “friends”
To clarify, are you talking about when she says that he’s bigger and stronger, she’s a 115 lb woman, in the context of the conversation mocking him for the idea that he would claim to be abused by her? I ask in sincerity, but below are some of the quotes from that.“Tell the world, Johnny, tell them… I, Johnny Depp, a man, I’m a victim too of domestic abuse… and see how many people believe or side with you” “You’re bigger and you’re stronger…. I was a 115 lb woman… You’re going to get up on the stand, Johnny, and say, ‘she started it’? Really?”“I have never been able to overpower you… there’s a jury and there’s a judge will see that there’s a very big difference between me and you”If you’re talking about that whole conversation, yeah, she says that she’s smaller, and yes, that’s totally true that she is smaller. But it’s also true that her tone of voice is mocking Depp (e.g., “a man”) for complaining about being hit by her, and criticizing the notion a man could be a victim of domestic abuse and be believed. Paired with her admitting to hitting him in that same conversation just moments earlier, it doesn’t exactly come off like she’s frightened of him. I could be mistaken that you’re referring to a different conversation where she actually says she’s frightened of him, though. I don’t recall her saying explicitly she was scared of him on an audio recording, but I could be mistaken, certainly. But if you’re referring to that conversation, I encourage you to listen to the tone of voice of the parties involved there and make your judgment about what’s being conveyed. I don’t believe everyone sounds or reacts the same when they’re abused, but my own subjective take of that conversation is that isn’t the audio recording of a woman who’s frightened of the man she’s chastising and belittling there – at least not based on what was recorded and what I recollect. Again, there might be other audio you’re referring to.The latter points: No, I think it’s clear that he made shitty remarks about the types of roles she chose, and seemed to have injected himself into her career. Those are indeed shitty. But, I don’t know how compelling those would be on their own. Both are Hollywood actors, and it’s kind of gross if a big name famous Hollywood actor dates or marries a lesser-known, more vulnerable actress, then uses his clout to control her. That might well be happening. It also might be that there was general tumult in a poisonous relationship regarding their careers, earnings, etc., and that kind of shitty behavior from him arises from that situation. It doesn’t make it cool, and I’d categorize it as toxic (just like I’d say their relationship was toxic). I also agree that some of his texts were vile, though I think some of them were from after they broke up and these claims were levied against him. If he were to believed, that would be him talking some hateful stuff about a woman that levied false accusations of abuse against him. I don’t know that those two elements rate nearly as much as the more severe allegations of physical and sexual abuse, but you wouldn’t need to twist my arm to agree that these two individuals were toxic or psychologically abusive with each other.
I honestly can’t tell if this a different conversation than the one I had quotes from earlier or not. Do you have the link for that source handy?
You’re talking to recognitions, the dumbest piece of shit on earth
If you died tomorrow no one would come to your funeral
That’s funny. If you died tomorrow me and your mom would come to your funeral. Not because she loves you but because she’s a freak who wants to do some kinky Game of Thrones shit on top of you casket.
Her saying that she was scared, that he put his hands on her and threw a phone at her doesn’t mean it actually happened. At one point in a recording when she talks about him abusing her, he says, “Do you really BELIEVE that?!” He tried to placate her. This psychologist does an excellent job educating about narcissistic personality disorder, and there are comments from many who have experienced narc abuse. It would be wonderful if people who don’t know what it’s like to be lied about after being abused by a narcissist would take some time to learn about it. Many survivors of abuse are angry at AH, to put it mildly, and recognize her abusive behavior. To discount us as misogynistic, crazy Depp stans is just adding insult to injury, and one more form of not listening to actual abuse survivors.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCovFoXEFY5gdzkDjdiZ0nNg/videos
what’s terrifying is that plenty of folks here who consider themselves moral and progressive human beings really will, if pressed, argue that it’s impossible for a woman to physically abuse a man. shit, they’ll bend over backwards to argue that he ‘deserved it’ or that simply because he’s a man, it’s acceptable. no matter what you say here, to them, no sympathy must be shown for what Depp suffered as a victim because he has a penis, the end. So it doesn’t matter. They’re too cowardly to directly that that’s their feeling, but it’s still what they’re saying. if you show sympathy to Depp as an abuse victim, it must mean you hate women and don’t care about abuse victims at all. Sympathy for abuse victims and condemnation of their abusers depends entirely upon genitals to far too many people, here and elsewhere. And that’s fucking disgusting. It sends a message to every male abuse victim out there to shut up and stay silent because no one cares. So leftist!
Totally agree. And as a woman who’s been targeted by narcissistic women, I think it’s important to recognize and accept that women can be abusive, to other women, to children, and to men. No hashtag can change that reality.
your argument here is dependent on the automatic assumption that she couldn’t possibly be lying about anything whatsoever. but that’s kinda your schtick, so hey.
You don’t matter
God I wish you’d get hit by a car. That would actually involve your ugly fat ass leaving the house though so I doubt that will happen.
no surprise that that’s as far as you read.
Because she was caught lying on the stand repeatedly. Objectively Your life doesn’t matter.
wait she actually won the TMZ part of the suit. And she actually pledged half of what she was to pledge, because almost all donations of that sort are drafted to be gifted in incremental amounts. She couldn’t fulfill the entire pledge when the legal fees started to occur, and because she stopped receiving work.
Annnnnd we have the next knee jerk reactionary who has no idea what they’re talking about enters the ring. And its the one who made up an abuse story to justify their ignorance to boot too!Her winning the TMZ suit is not the point. The point and fact is she did not do what she pledged to do and did lie about those TMZ photos, which makes her less credible and dishonest in the eyes of a jury and that’s all that matters in a libel lawsuit where the plaintiff, Depp, is trying to prove that she’s a liar.
Are you an actual lawyer who’s post hold more weight or just a random jackass?
other cases do not having bearing on current ones, and shouldn’t. a verdict is not airtight evidence of truth.
Lol you’re such an embarrassment to humanity.Stop talking. You don’t matter
it’s team sports here, not logic. the goal-posts will shift back and forth endlessly. there’s no convincing anyone.
And? Your point is what exactly? Why do you feel the need to tell me this?
Malice is more than that. It’s she was lying and knew she was lying and lied with the express purpose of causing harm. Which, given that the article under review didn’t offer any specifics that tied the abuse to Depp, harm is pretty much bullshit.Now, The Sun published an article calling him specifically a “wife-beater”, and that would consitute malice if it could be proven to be untrue, but that wasn’t part of this trial (not to mention, he lost the UK case about The Sun’s article because it was found that he had in fact hit her on several occasions, which quite literally makes him a wife-beater).
Nope. Under Virginia law, Depp had burden of proof to prove that the statements were defamatory. Seemed juror did not really understand that.
Yeah it’s the entire jury that’s wrong – not you, who is just some dumb asshole on the internet
You mean “nope” to yourself right? Just because you disagree with the verdict and hate Depp, doesn’t mean the juror/jury was wrong or is how you think and want Virginia law to work. See ElectricSheep and my posts up and down this thread as to why. AVClub commenter bias and opinions do not apply in a court of law or to lawful arguments.
Opinions on the outcome of the case are irrelevant to one’s understanding of the legal process.
I think you might be conflating the requirement for the plaintiff to prove that the elements of the tort have been met (the initial burden of proof), with the defendant’s requirement to prove the necessary elements of the defense they raised.
In this case, had Depp failed to show, on a balance of probabilities, that all the elements of the tort of defamation had been met (e.g. say he was unable to prove that the statements made by Heard were intended to refer to him, or that he couldn’t prove that he suffered any actual harm as a result of the statements) then Heard wouldn’t even have had to prove that her statements were true (though it would certainly help her case if she were able to do so).
Opinions on the outcome of the case are irrelevant to one’s understanding of the legal process.
It does in the case of this comment section for the reasons you perfectly demonstrated: you think the jury and Depp are in the wrong because of your biases and opinions. Your whole second paragraph of you in total internet lawyer mode that didn’t actually follow the case shows that. Heard did try to dismiss the case on those grounds but it got denied, so she countersued instead and that didn’t work either because yeah, the onus is on the defendant as far defamation cases in Virginia are concerned.
I don’t know how much clearer the English has to be.“They abused each other.” “She was not the victim of abuse.”WTF kind of double speak nonsense is that?
Electric Sheep referred to the full juror quote, which was that he didn’t physically abuse her. Yes, we can say he emotionally abused her (and many of us feel he physically did, as well), but the case was really about accusations of physical abuse. That’s what he was suing over. The jury was not instructed that anything he did to her that was emotionally abusive meant his case was invalid, because that wasn’t ever the case, as much as people keep trying to use the emotional abuse as proof of nullification. It was always about her saying she was physically assaulted by him. The jury didn’t believe she was.We can hate the verdict, but it wasn’t one that was made because the jury was stupid or didn’t understand the case or their instructions. They apparently understood it better than most of the people online.
No. It wasn’t about physical abuse. He was suing SPECIFICALLY because of a SPECIFIC article she wrote in which she claimed to be a “public figure representing domestic abuse”. The juror not believing that she was physically abused (which is crazy given the UK verdict) is irrelevant to the specific defamation suit. Abuse is abuse. This juror states that he believes they were mutually abusive. How does that logic work, then? And for what it’s worth, defamation also requires malice. Which was not proven. This guy doesn’t even mention the malice aspect.The jury did not understand the case.
Perhaps you’d like the definition of ‘domestic abuse’ to change to account for all abuse, but that’s not how the term works, sorry.
And the results of a past case are not, in our legal system, supposed to guarantee an outcome in a new case. Sorry that’s inconvenient to you, but sometimes (often) past court cases get things wrong. A verdict in a past case should never be taken as gospel truth. I know fairness doesn’t matter when you’ve decided someone is a monster, but thank god you’re not a jury if that’s how you conduct yourself.
And to not see the intent of malice here, of an abuser trying to continue their intimidation and abuse of their victim, you’re being hugely selective and hypocritical.
You don’t understand the case. You’re a fucking idiot with hot takes about literally everything. You’re a nobody. You don’t matter, no matter how much you cry.
Yeah it’s not that you’re stupid and frequently make claim that you have no evidence for or insight into – it’s that the whole jury (full of people you don’t know) is stupid.You’re an embarrassment
No, the jury definitely understood. They got very in depth instruction.Everyone who watched knows the verdict is correct. I’m a lawyer, and I can honestly tell you, it’s over. She has no grounds for appeal, and she was a terrible, combative witness on the stand who was clearly lying and obfuscating on many points.The jury has no obligation to believe a word of a person’s testimony if they believe that person lied. Falcius in uno, falcius in omnibus. Jurors are instructed on this in every trial, during jury instruction. Its a legal term that means if they find they lied once, they are are allowed to assume they lied about everything. Jury nullification is also totally legal. There is no problem with the verdict, only with the publics understanding of the law.
HE made it about physical abuse. There’s nothing in the very short statement he sued over that’s specifically about physical abuse.
she used the term ‘domestic abuse’, but y’all are pretending that term is broader than it is to make your point, so.
You’re pretending it’s narrower than it actually is to make your point. UN definition of domestic abuse: Domestic abuse, also called “domestic violence” or “intimate partner violence”, can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or wound someone. https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/what-is-domestic-abuse. Similar definitions can be found at US specific sources. https://ncadv.org/learn-more
You’re so ignorant it hurts
The “double speak” is the consequence of your cherrypicking the statements while ignoring the qualification to PHYSICAL abuse for the second statement.
I shouldn’t have used “abused,” actually. They beat up on each other. They were two people who routinely beat up on each other. It was a volatile relationship between two volatile, violent people. It’s fucked up, but to call yourself a victim of abuse as if it were a one-sided affair is a lie by omission. It’s just strange that y’all are ignoring all the things that she did to him. I find that interesting. You don’t get to say you’re a victim of abuse when you also “victimized” your “abuser.”
But I thought you didn’t follow the entire trial and and thus were avoiding making a decision over who abused whom.
True, my conclusion is based on only bits and pieces so I’m not about to go to the mat for my personal conclusion, but what I was trying to talk about was what the jury clearly concluded.
It’s almost impressive how consistently you’re able to be a dumb piece of shit
the definition of ‘victim’ and ‘abuser’ depends on genitals for most people here, but they simply aren’t even brave enough with such a monstrous conviction to come out and say it.
I think people are willing to believe that a woman can abuse a man if that’s all that’s happening. I just think that we as a culture have had “boys shouldn’t hit girls” beaten into our brains (no pun intended) so hard, and not needlessly I should add, that seeing the possibility of that can overshadow other things that are happening. Idk.
There isn’t actually any credible evidence that he ever physically hurt her, or that he did anything besides sometimes engage in verbal fights with her. This is what people describe as “reactive” when they say she shouldn’t have to be a perfect victim, but when it turns out the victim is the man, he doesn’t receive the same understanding. I also believed Heard initially, and women generally, but the evidence and testimony have convinced me she was the abuser and he was on the receiving end. I watched almost the whole trial; like many people who have actually been subjected to narcissistic abuse, I became pretty invested in it and am happy the jury saw through her lies. Many, many survivors of abuse feel the same (see comments on YouTube videos of the trial and evidence) and are disgusted by her exploitation of the MeToo movement for her selfish motives.
except that pretending the word “physical” doesn’t appear means it wasn’t plain enough to you, apparently
It bothers me that people as dumb as you get to use the internet
If you don’t believe she was abused, then no, she is not a public figure representing abuse.That doesn’t logically follow.Jamake Highwater represented Native American culture as a Hollywood cultural advisor. He was in reality a white Jewish guy named Jamie Marks. But being a fraud doesn’t change the fact that he did, in fact, act as the representative for Native American culture on numerous programs for decades. The truth of his ethnicity is irrelevant to the fact that he acted in that capacity.The three statements that the jury were supposed to rule on:(1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”She did speak up against sexual violence. She did face our culture’s wrath. Whether she was abused or not doesn’t make this statement untrue.(2) “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”She did become a public figure representing domestic abuse, and did face public wrath in response. Whether she was abused at all, let alone by Depp specifically, doesn’t retroactively change that fact.(3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”She did see institutions protect men accused of abuse. Even if one takes that statement to refer to mean Depp specifically, she did see that happen. Again, whether her accusations were false doesn’t retroactively change that.She told the truth on all three statements. The article was carefully vetted by the ACLU lawyers to ensure that. If Depp wanted this to be about the factuality of the abuse, he should have chosen statements in the article that are actually about the factuality of the abuse. But he didn’t. Because those statements don’t exist.
The jury and most legal analysis disagrees with you
They were looking at the op-ed in the context of her accusing JD of abusing her, not taking the words out of that context.
again, not the standard. NOT what was at issue here. This juror apparently believed that she was abused. Ok. So that means her op-ed piece was true in that regard. Just because she may also have been an abuser doesn’t negate the fact that she was abused. So when she identified herself as a past victim of domestic abuse, that was true.And in any event that’s only part of what Depp needed to prove. How could the jury EVER find actual malice when she didn’t even use his name in the piece? It’s absurd. Go back and read that op-ed. The jury’s findings with regard to Depp’s claim of defamation are simply not supported by the evidence.
1) The juror did not apparently believe that she was abused.2) Saying she was hit, for the sake of argument, if she held herself out as a victim of abuse without also sharing that she was also an abuser, that is a lie of omission and paints the alleged abuser in an light that is not entirely accurate.3) In defamation law you don’t have to say the name if it’s obvious who you’re talking about. If you were on the jury you would have been allowed to find it absurd, but I’m guessing the jury instructions had something in there to this effect. I haven’t read the instructions though.
You are right but you will never get anywhere arguing it here as people here are not lawyers and do not understand the law. Way too many media people falsely said if Heard proved she was hit once she wins, and that was not the case at all. She claimed the abuse was all one way and it was obvious she was talking about Depp. A lie by omission is still a lie and the jury obviously felt she was lying as she was not telling the whole story. If you get into a voluntary fight with someone and you are both hitting each other when the fight was also at least partly your fault, it is a lie to claim the other person attacked you for no reason and they were 100% at fault.
yep. you’re dealing with people who’s definition of ‘victim’ and ‘abuser’ depends on their genitals, so there’s no winning here. the strawmen and ad hominem will flow and the goalposts will keep shifting.
I’m glad someone here isn’t a complete idiot.
Not only that, but there is actually no credible evidence that he ever hit her. And the juror seems to equate “mutually abusive” with “husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other. I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess. Heard, the juror said, was considered the aggressor in the relationship by the majority of the jury.” If people are going to determine abuse occurred, that term needs to be defined, not used loosely to describe arguments. The jury had longer recordings of the couple, in which Heard is clearly heard verbally abusing JD and admits several times to physically abusing him (punching and hitting him, throwing things at him, and cutting off his finger). There’s no evidence on these recordings of him hurting her – she’s just yelling at him bc he kept trying to leave when she got physical. There’s also video of the trial with commentary from attorneys (“LawTubers”) who explain the 3 statements Depp’s team submitted as defamatory, the 3 statements Heard’s team submitted, and the conditions needed to meet the standards for defamation. Another comment from the juror that was not included above: “Also suspect were the photos that Heard’s team presented that purported to show bruising on the actress’ face.” Her “mountains of evidence” included doctored photos and pictures of herself with “bruises” that must have been created with make-up when you compare them with her accounts of abuse and the timing of other photos and video from the same time frames. Without considering her body language at all, her testimony and evidence had many inconsistencies. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCovFoXEFY5gdzkDjdiZ0nNg/videosThe judge in the UK trial did not consider a lot of JD’s evidence because of his substance use (which AH also engages in, but her side kept equating his use with being abusive). The judge also gave a lot of weight to her having donated her $7 million divorce settlement, which we now know is not true. She had the entire settlement for a year before he sued her, but now she says it’s his fault she can’t afford to pay, while she repeatedly claimed she donated all of it.
The juror did not apparently believe that she was abused.You keep saying that, but…He concludes the interview with this: “What I think is truthful is that they were both abusive to each other”…very clearly states otherwise.His overall message is very clear: “Sure, she was a victim of abuse, but I didn’t like her so that doesn’t matter”.
Falsius in Uno, falsius in omnibus. She lied so much her whole testimony became worthless.
The malice part, in this particular case, is kind of moot based upon whether a juror decides that Depp met his burden of demonstrating that she was lying about being a victim of DV, which damaged his reputation/earnings.The malice piece is moot relative to the otehr elements, because once the elements are established, the malice piece most likely shifts in the direction of those other elements. If the jury found that Heard was abused by Depp, then the malice part was unlikely to be met, because she published a piece documenting her abuse, but it wasn’t defamatory because it was true, and therefore, unlikely to be malicious. If the jury found that Heard was not abused by Depp (which it seems is the case, based on the comments of the juror), then that would mean that Heard wasn’t abused by Depp in the way she claimed, but the only reason she’d be publishing the piece suggesting she was the victim of abuse by Depp was because she was intentionally lying about it (if the abuse didn’t happen). So either way, the malice just falls in line with the other elements.Also, the juror’s statements indicated that he didn’t believe that Depp physically hit her, and presumably didn’t sexually assault her. It seems his comments are indicating that the relationship was toxic and abusive, but abusive suggesting psychological abuse. But, the headline of the op-ed article indicated she was a victim of physical and sexual violence. So if that wasn’t true, based on the jury’s decisions, then that would be where they could determine that there was defamation.
Shw was used b y the aclu
You’re not an intelligent person
You’re a wackjob.
For greater context, from the original interview on GMA.com: “Heard’s credibility was suspect throughout the duration of the trial, the juror said. Besides how she acted on the stand, several other factors led the jury to believe Heard was not credible, the juror said.The jury concluded ‘they were both abusive to each other’ but Heard’s team failed to prove Depp’s abuse was physical.‘They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other. I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess. But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying,’ he said.”
All you did was highlight that the Juror didn’t understand what the case was. Framing it was Heard and her team having the burden of proof is just not correct.
She had the burden of proof if she was claiming truth as a defense.
That is not correct.
they’re a lawyer, but cool
Lol you’re not a lawyer and you have zero idea what you’re talking about
I hope you’re never on a jury. Please find every legal excuse to never be put on a jury. The jury room isn’t the fast & loose wild west.
I’m a lawyer so I’m statistically unlikely to be chosen for a jury. Lawyers don’t like other lawyers on the jury because they can’t trick us.
If you were a lawyer, you’d know that Amber lost on the evidence, and that chance of overturn is close to zero.
ironic, considering that this comment section is literally advocating for a fast-and-loose wild west approach to justice. and y’know, you’re saying this to a lawyer.
You’re an extremely unintelligent person
You’re an embarrassment
Most lawyers agree that there’s no grounds for an appeal. Appeals aren’t as easy to get as Hollywood makes it seem. You don’t get to just keep appealing because you don’t get the verdict you wanted. Whatever we think of the verdict, everyone did their jobs. This juror didn’t say anything that would be grounds for an appeal. And I say this as someone who didn’t and doesn’t support Depp.
she would appeal on procedural basis in this instance, not substantive.
Yup, lawyer here. I’ve told a hundred people this now, and they claim I don’t know what im talking about. Nevermind that im licensed to practice in Virginia, they were told on twitter and in comment sections that they are right.
Jurors. 12 of them.
That is just a nonsense narrative. Amber admitted it was about him, and tge evidence made very clear that he was the one who was abused. She’s a monster.
What in the statement at issue refers specifically to physical abuse?
it’s not gonna help. they’ll continue to cherry-pick and deliberately misinterpret.
the juror insists that the jury “followed the evidence”Agreed. This juror seems quite dumb. He says that he seriously considered things like crying or not crying. He has zero self-awareness.
lol. ‘the juror is dumb’ *goes on to criticize them for following impressions that every jury considers in their reasoning*
Lol yeah you have a ton of insight into this right?
That’s a very selective reading of what the juror actually said. The problem the jury had, along with most people who watched the trial, is that her crying turned on and off so quickly that it was unnatural – people have likened it to a director saying “cut” when there would be an objection and she had to pause in her testimony – and that she was acting like she was sobbing but there were never actual tears. He never said they had a problem with her crying, that she should have been or shouldn’t have been.
Selective reading comprehension is hard.
They followed the evidence and determined that a case wasn’t made vouching for PHYSICAL abuse. They acknowledge that some form of mutual abuse occurred. But please keep tossing out strawmen and mocking total strangers for not thinking like you demanded they should.
It’s a good thing your opinion doesn’t matter to anyone
Nice of the jury to get in on the victim blaming.
Sorry you were made to feel uncomfortable lil juror 🙁
at least it’s a somewhat new angle compared to the absolutely psychotic Depp stans this case unearthed that would respond to my points about the UK court finding it “probably true” that he beat her—”well the UK courts have a different legal standard for defamation and also YOU JUST WANT TO FUCK HEARD YOU PATHETIC LOSER HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST JOHNNY DEPP COULD HURT ANYONE???” LOL
absolutely psychotic Depp stans You ain’t kidding.
I’ve had some friends go down the rabbithole. In some ways I almost understand it – you’re inundated with just a barrage of completely surreal information and fawning adulation for Depp – but it’s been pretty dismal to see and the ferocity with which they’re defending him has literally cost me a few of those friendships. Really sucks. I honestly hadn’t been saying much about it but it’s just a neverending stream from his supporters, who will absolutely not let you get away from it.
Go and open a fan club… 🙄Why actually do YOU BELIEVE Amber Heard?
it’s not that I believe her, it’s that I don’t reflexively think she’s lying about everything, AND I am therefore open to the possibility (the high likelihood) that HE hit HER, as a jury full of adults with functioning brains in England concluded was “probably true.” I know this a little nuanced for the average Depp stan but there you go.
You know there was no jury of “functioning adults,” in the UK trial, right? It was jus a judge.Most “functioning adults” using the UK trial as their mic drop already knew that fact. It’s ironic that someone being so condescending to the US jury is ignorant of it, and apparently about that trial altogether.But that fictional jury in the UK sure were smart, weren’t they? You nailed it.
I love how I can make the most innocent comment about Depp stans and they just come running to prove they’re all perfectly rational and not at all triggered by the implication that Saint Johnny might have done what the UK JUDGE AND a US jury agreed he did to at least some degree. I almost feel bad for UK tourism knowing so many Americans are going to bypass it for having the audacity to have a JUDGE (not a JURY LOL) impugn Saint Johnny like he (or was it she?) did.
Not only probably true is that she beat him and he tried to get away from her several times…. Why can’t she take proof of being beaten up but of several voice recordings she is yelling… Makes no sense!
since you felt the burning urge to respond TWICE to my comment LOL and I’m sure are thus a totally rational Depp fan, I’ll ask you the opposite of what you asked me–why do believe EVERYTHING Depp says and assume EVERYTHING Heard says is an outright lie?
That’s not really fair. You’ve never had someone’s demeanor be so off-putting that it made you uncomfortable and made that person seem untrustworthy to you?
If I ever did, I certainly wouldn’t conflate my reaction to someone else’s expressions with “following the evidence,” as this guy did. You aren’t following the evidence if you’re trusting your gut reaction on how trustworthy someone appears.
Except witness testimony and behavior is part of the evidence. It’s why we have live testimony. The jury is able to see how the witness behaves in response to questions. Body language makes up a large part of human communication, so it’s not to be discounted. If we didn’t think it was important trials would consist of written testimony only.
I think you might be under the impression that the system we have for meting out justice in American society is a fundamentally good one, and I’m afraid to say that you’d be utterly wrong. It’s utterly facile on the face of it, demonstrably so in this case alone, to say nothing of the thousands of other miscarriages of justices in this country. This case was literally between two actors. Actors presumably know how to control their emotions, both by reining them in when necessary, and letting them out when needed. Seeing an actor respond just as you would expect them to is not evidence of anything.
We all see thousands of actor’s performances in our lives, so we’re accustomed to allowing ourselves to be fooled into thinking they’re something they’re not. What most of us don’t see very often is how people who have suffered from abuse act in a vulnerable state. It’s absolutely insane to think that the average person knows how anybody “should” act when they’re the victim of abuse.
“I think you might be under the impression that the system we have for meting out justice in American society is a fundamentally good one, and I’m afraid to say that you’d be utterly wrong.”Please, tell the lawyer more about the failings of our legal system. I’m not familiar with them. lolNothing I said indicated that our justice system doesn’t have flaws, or that biases don’t ever make their way into the courtroom. That said, the ability to read body language is not one of them. There’s a reason you want to be looking at someone when you need to know if they’re lying to you. We as human beings can tell things from body language. That there are flaws in the justice system doesn’t make that not true. And you’re 100% allowed to disagree with that and that’s totally fine! But definitely please lecture me more about courtrooms.
People’s general ability to read body language is way worse than they think it is, and for you to put some sort of fundamental faith in that is exactly my point about you believing our justice system to be fundamentally good at what it does. It’s literally how racism and sexism has been entrenched in it since its inception. You being a lawyer hardly negates your clear bias in the system working. I’m sure Upton Sinclair would be happy to walk you through exactly why.To be clear, I’m hardly attempting to lecture you on courtrooms or the law. I’m explaining how your starting principles are flawed, and as such, so is everything else you believe. And you’re 100% allowed to disagree with that, but what the fuck difference would it make anyone.
This person is discussing how flawed and awful the legal system is while also vouching for it to have reached the conclusion they’d preferred, and doesn’t see the irony there…
“tell the lawyer” Thank you, part of the problem.
You’re describing the fact that Heard made a tactical error in human manipulation rather than pointing out whether or not Heard was actually telling the truth. Which, sure, the latter is technically immaterial to the discussion you want to have. But that it is immaterial is rather the whole point of the comment you’re replying to, one that despite (or perhaps because of) your far more extensive experience in courtrooms you seem to have missed. I think lawyers especially in this country need to be a little more wary about blithely conflating the two. At least if you want folks to have more faith in the system you serve, even if you do so honestly and ably. Especially if that is so.
We know not committing that error creates more victories in cases than the truth of one’s actual claims. We know that. But it is your expertise in the system and your lack of pause about the, yes, absolutely subjective lines by which “justice” is meted out in our system which is precisely what gives me pause.
Maybe a jury of our peers being so uneducated and swayable in the subjects they’re meant to weigh in, not least in a system with a lot more parts that are merely lasting than are actually worthy, is feasibly something to complain about, especially to folks who know.
I wasn’t conflating anything, blithely or otherwise. I don’t know if Heard was telling the truth because I didn’t watch the entirety of the trial or pay attention to all the evidence in the way the jury would (should) have. I have no way of knowing whether she was telling the truth, and if I wasn’t commenting on whether she told the truth, there’s no way I could have been conflating it with anything. Furthermore, saying that witness demeanor has an effect on the jury doesn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with manipulating anyone. You are conflating behaving in a way that doesn’t outright make people uncomfortable with some sort of nefarious ends. If you act weird and untrustworthy, people are going to be weirded out and discomfited by you.I actually don’t care if folks have more faith in the system. I’m not “the system’s” mascot or spokesperson. I have issues with the system myself, so I’m not telling anyone not to have problems with the system. But live witness testimony is not one of those problems. Being able to assess trustworthiness is the job of the factfinder, and you can tell a lot from non-verbal communication. You don’t have to agree with me. I’m 100% fine with you not being okay with that.As for the jury being uneducated, again, that’s the fault of Heard’s lawyer. It’s the lawyer’s job to educate the jury on issues important to her case.Also, it’s possible Heard was just lying. You can have all the problems with the system you want, but she could also just have been lying, in addition to the system having faults.
Ack, too late to add an edit:
To be clear, I don’t find a problem with most of your arguments. Is it alright to be fairly uncomfortable with the fact that I don’t? That so much of our society is based not on what was the correct outcome, but how the promoters of certain ideas or ideals simply failed or didn’t fail them? That this is the same kind of discussion that, say, gets us talking heads discussing whether Trump followers are making tactical errors or successes in appealing to voters rather than, you know, the fact that the things they stand for are wholly repugnant?
“That this is the same kind of discussion that, say, gets us talking heads discussing whether Trump followers are making tactical errors or successes in appealing to voters rather than, you know, the fact that the things they stand for are wholly repugnant?”I’ve only ever talked about the fact that he’s wholly repugnant.
It was a case between an actor and Amber Heard.Let’s not pretend that any character Heard has played is different than any other.
Almost said this word for word…this exactly.
ThisA good lawyer will see that a case never goes to trial.A great lawyer can sway a jury over testimony alone by asking the right questions to manipulate emotional and behavioral responses that would strengthen their case.A bad lawyer believes they can win a case with evidence alone, no matter how cut and dry it may seem.
What’s kinda fucked about this is that she probably doesn’t have much recourse if her lawyers were actually bad. What’s she going to do, sue for malpractice? This verdict has all but guaranteed that nobody’s going to take her seriously. After all, she’s “unlikeable”.
But this is someone they feel can commit no wrong, remember, and that’s the only conclusion that must be reached or else everyone they disagree with is clearly a monster. These normal adult jurors are obviously idiots and misogynists because of the conclusion they arrived at. Sounds a bit like throwing a tantrum about a democratically-secure election not going your way…
Yes, we know the US “justice” system is bad.
Yeah I’ve learned that the vast majority of people who can turn on and off the waterworks at will are not generally trustworthy.
You wouldn’t, maybe, but many would. People aren’t smart enough to distinguish between their gut and the evidence. People have in their minds preconceived notions of how people should react, and when people don’t react that way, they think deceiver. It’s WORSE when the person is a deceiver by trade—an actor.
It may have been the exact opposite what the juror claimed, actually. Her actor training is what enabled her to compose herself so quickly after her natural emotional reaction to reliving questions about abuse.
You are being beyond infantilizing and condescending to total strangers because they didn’t decide the way you insisted they shoud.
Isn’t that the purpose of the comments section of AVClub?
Johnny Depp’s an actor, too. How come they had no trouble believing him?
I think Heard herself said it best: “He’s a beloved character and people feel they know him. He’s a fantastic actor.”
He’s at the acting stage now where the persona he’s created is just an extension of his own personality—or at least, the only personality he reveals to the world—some charming hybrid version of himself + Jack Sparrow. When casting directors cast him, they’re looking for that persona. They no longer care that he could act a completely different role, or that he has range.
Because, notably, Depp was not caught making outrageous, irrefutable lie after lie. Because Depp never refused to take responsibility for even trivial misdeeds.
Her testimony is evidence. If you think the testimony is fake, then you think that isn’t true evidence.
Sounds like he, and the rest of the jury, followed both the evidence AND went by their instincts in observing her demeanor, which is…y’know, a jury’s job.
Folks that go out of their way to absolve Heard of any wrong-doing and are refusing to respect that the jury felt the case didn’t prove physical abuse are being just as insufferable as ‘Psychotic Depp Stans’.
If I ever did, I certainly wouldn’t conflate my reaction to someone else’s expressions with “following the evidence,” as this guy did. You aren’t following the evidence if you’re trusting your gut reaction on how trustworthy someone appears.
Not to take sides in this, but that’s what juries do all the time. They are often presented with conflicting evidence and have to make judgments on the trustworthiness of witnesses and their testimony as part of their evaluation of that evidence.
The juror went over a fairly extensive list of the specific evidence they found compelling in the actual interview. The AVClub chose to edit all of it out. And you uncritically presumed the juror based his opinions on gut reactions – just like you yourself just did.
Maybe not for a criminal verdict where someone’s freedom was at stake; but for two Hollywood nitwits squabbling over who was meaner to who…eh, fuck it…gut feeling is fine.
Yeah, but not for basic emotions during an extremely stressful point in someone’s life.
Then you’d be the exception, I think.
Hey, if you’re trying to say that People Are Shit, I’m not going to argue.
That’s not what I was trying to say, but it’s not untrue, by and large.
I mean, they’re lying.
Yes.
Because that’s the standard legal proceedings should be held to.
Judging witness credibility is the primary job of the factfinder (jury in this case, judge in bench trials).
The problem is you’re asking 7 lay people to “know how an abuse victim is supposed to be reacting”… which, there isn’t a prescribed emotional reaction to getting knocked around and being treated like shit and then recounting it, especially when you’re getting peppered by lawyers on the other side just throwing DARVO bullshit at them so you’re already being primed to think SHE was the real abuser even though the texts and testimony show he treated her like absolute garbage.
It could very well be true that victims of domestic violence appear scripted and in performance mode and all in all weird. I don’t know that it is, but let’s say it is. In that case her lawyer should have put on an expert witness to that effect once she noticed how strangely her client was acting and how poorly the jury was reacting to her. At least that’s what I would have done.But again, saying there isn’t a prescribed emotional reaction to xyz, that’s assuming xyz happened, which is not something the jury is allowed to do. You’re allowed to do it because you weren’t on the jury, but that also means you might not have received all the evidence that they did. Or maybe you did watch the entirety of the trial and you did see all the evidence, I don’t know! But my point is it’s very easy to second-guess a jury, and Lord knows they aren’t always right, but it’s easy to second-guess them when you weren’t the one responsible for the actual weighing of evidence and you have the benefit of being allowed to freely let your personal feelings into the evaluation.
Actually the testimony and audio evidence was Heards downfall. They clearly showed that Depp was the victim of abuse. Heard getting caught in lies, contradictions and other nonsensical chatter as well is what made the verdict a slam dunk for Depp’s side. Heck, Depp’s team didn’t even get some of the most damning evidence against Heard admitted like those Australian recordings.
…this is the justice system and its expectations. That’s exactly how it works. I’m sorry you weren’t handed the result here you demanded, but the expectations of the justice system and how it works are unchanging.
Also, I know reading comprehension can be hard when it’s applied selectively, but the person interviewed reaffirmed that the juror felt they were both abusive. He stated that they don’t think the case was proven that he was physically abusive. Sorry that hurts your bias in this case but again, that’s how the justice system works. And thank Christ it’s more impartial than the witch-hunt folks like you seem to be advocating for.
Britain, which has a lower standard of proof for defamation, found the majority of her specific claims credible, to the point that a newspaper who called him a wife beater was not found liable, and the only real difference seems to be a bench trial vs a jury trial where his defense couldn’t play the lawyer games they payed on the jury.
Completely different cases. The UK judge didn’t hear testimony from Heard, nor most of what was presented in the US trial. People using the UK trial as some kind of proof that the jury isn’t as enlightened or as informed as the UK judge either don’t realize or don’t care that the two aren’t remotely as comparable as they keep claiming.
Heard did testify in the UK trial, she was a witness for the Sun newspaper, and she was able to show more evidence in the UK then she was in the US trial.
And that trial didn’t have three quarters of the evidence and testimony or cross examination as the US trial. They aren’t that comparable. The UK trial is held up as a precedence it didn’t actually set, mostly because people think it strengthens the case against Depp and the US jury. But it’s ultimately irrelevant and not at all the same case. There’s far more about it that is different than similar, from the procedure to the required arguments needed, etc.That’s not to say Depp didn’t abuse Heard. But using the UK trial as proof he did isn’t the winning argument people keep thinking it is.
You’re not an intelligent person
No one respects you or cares what you have to say.
I wouldn’t hedge a verdict on “a feeling of uncomfortability”.
Anyone who was “comfortable” with any part of this trial is a fucking madperson.
Sure, but I don’t think a couple of quotes pulled from an interview are meant to convey that that was the entire basis of the verdict either.
Yes, this juror for instance.
You’ve never had someone’s demeanor be so off-putting that it made you uncomfortable and made that person seem untrustworthy to you?Counterpoint: Many (most?) men are uncomfortable with any display of emotions, because they’ve been enculturated to be ashamed of their own emotions.
That’s certainly not untrue.
I didn’t get that message based upon the full quote. It sounded like they thought she was perhaps being untruthful and putting on a performance.
Making determinations about the credibility of a witness is and always has been a key role for a finder of fact whether that’s a judge or a jury, sorry that well-established part of the legal system makes you uncomfortable.
This right here.
Nice of Amber Heard to seek to repeatedly manipulate the jury. Her string of lies were fun too.
There’s nothing unusual about a juror trying to evaluate a witness’s credibility — that’s a major function of the jury. The juror here isn’t saying, “Amber Heard was sad, and I don’t like people being sad, so I punished her.” He’s saying that the way she appeared upset, then suddenly not, over and over again, was not credible to him.
She’s not a victim…
Seems like it wasn’t blaming so much as deciding she was not the victim
Witness credibility is left exclusively to the jury. Everything counts–not just what’s being said, but how it’s being said.
Her “emotional” response did not seem genuine, that was the problem. Her frequent looking at the jury made it obvious that this was some kind of performance.
Victim? Hearsay
Her “emotional” response did not seem genuine, that was the problem. Her
frequent looking at the jury made it obvious that this was some kind of
performance.
Yeah a man found a woman crying uncomfortable!! The shock!! The fact that any of the jury had access to social media is a huge problem. I don’t think Heard had a chance if a fair trial but jury should have been sequestered. I think she would win an appeal with actual judges but I doubt she can afford to do it
He used the term crocodile tears, which means she faking it. That would be an uncomfortable position to be in when someone is trying to con you with an act obviously.
The only time I have ever heard someone use the term “crocodile tears” is when shitty parents don’t want to acknowledge their children are actual hurt.
“He used the term crocodile tears” A favorite term of psychopaths.
What about the female jurors, then? What about that this person also said the evidence didn’t lead them to believe the case was proven? Are you going to continue to insult and mock strangers because they didn’t vote how you insisted they should?
I had a boss once who was also a pathological liar just like Amber Heard and I know exactly what he’s saying. It was indeed very uncomfortable to listen to someone you know is lying. Offensive as well when you consider that he and Heard obviously had little respect for those they were attempting to con.
Yeah, that’s not what he said whatsoever. He said they found her unbelievable, and their feelings are valid (feelings shared by, according to this person, male and female jurors), despite her dripping condescension that implied these intelligent grown adults were just too star-struck by Depp to understand what was going on.
It’s kind of hilarious watching a handful of people still try to defend her in the face of overwhelming evidence. . .
Victim blaming? When someone you know has been in the situation Amber CLAIMS to have been in maybe you would find it difficult to believe and be actually pretty angry Amber attempts to compare herself to a REAL victim of violence. A bruise kit would not hide the physical swelling and facial cuts the next day or even almost a week after. Amber is LYING. She said it happened all the time….not once or twice and I have SEEN what that looks like.
You’re extremely unintelligent
This article Is purposefully misrepresenting what the juror said. The juror did not feel uncomfortable over the emotion that Amber showed, It was the obvious Insincerity that was off-putting to him.
Amber actually needed to be a victim for victim blaming to be a factor, however a jury found Depp to be the actual victim and her claims/lies to not be credible. Have you never heard a woman lie? It happens, and it definitely gave a boost to her career when she first made the allegations. It is rare, but sometimes women can cry wolf.
I don’t feel equipped to make any statements on who was lying or this or that, but I can say that Heard’s lawyer did not do her any favors. The lawyering itself was bad, but she also did an awful job prepping Heard for the trial. This juror was right that her entire demeanor was off-putting. Her lawyer should have better trained her on how to behave on the stand, and she should have had someone keeping an eye on the jury’s reactions to her to adjust as necessary. Heard looked like she was putting on a performance. That’s always going to leave the jury feeling deceived.
“Her lawyer should have better trained her on how to behave on the stand, and she should have had someone keeping an eye on the jury’s reactions to her to adjust as necessary. Heard looked like she was putting on a performance.”
So you’re saying her attorney should have trained her to put on a better performance.
You can put it that way if you want. Or her lawyer could have told her not to put on a performance at all and to just get up there and talk like a normal person.
Naive. Familiarize yourself with the reality of how testimony actually works in reality.
Sure thing – I’ll make sure to do that during my next trial.
No. Heard’s own statements helped make Depp’s case and allowed his legal team to introduce evidence that they would not otherwise have been able to do. For example, Heard flat-out admitted under cross examination that the WaPo op-ed was specifically about Depp.
“Depp was the better actor” sure seems like a bad take to have. When reciting to millions of people my painful memories, I wouldn’t be smiling and cheerful or even passionate. I guess that means I would have lost as well.
Whose take was that? Because I didn’t say anything about anybody being a better or worse actor. Witness-stand behavior is not supposed to be acting at all. In fact, my specific criticism was that she looked like she was acting.
Witness-stand behavior is not supposed to be acting at all.
….
Her lawyer should have better trained her on how to behave on the stand, and she should have had someone keeping an eye on the jury’s reactions to her to adjust as necessary.
Did you have commentary to add? Because what I typed was already up there. You didn’t need to type it again. And you certainly didn’t have to type out only certain, small parts, leaving out the portions that didn’t say what you want me to have said.
You’re now noticing that AVClub commenters think that court cases/rooms and juries are supposed to be like this comment section. They seem to have no understanding or want to understand that’s not how real life works.
Yeah, I don’t know why I’m doing this. People are allowed to disagree with the verdict, but hearing all the armchair lawyers try to explain what they believe the burden of proof is because they read a blog, or criticize someone for not knowing “what words mean,” having no education at all as to “what words mean” in a legal setting… it’s funny and also frustrating. lolNot to mention that none of them, I’m betting, watched the whole trial from start to finish, or listened to the jury instructions, yet they’re definitely sure what the verdict should have been.
The other day, I had ohnoray screaming about “sequestering the jury” and “media blackout” and when I explained to him that you don’t do that in civil lawsuits and that Amber could’ve and should’ve actually pressed criminal charges for a better and fairer trial, he went off. It’s more funny that these are adults you’re speaking to, but they act like children. “Auto agree with me and my black and white, binary thinking and ignorance or else you’re a stoopid doody head!” is the MO around these parts nowadays and its galling. Even when you’re trying to correct something false they said.
Its even funnier that you think that it is mostly adults in the comment section of the AV club. Maybe being over 18 technically considered an adult, but actual full grown life experienced adults? I don’t think so.
Yeah the people talking about how the jury should have been sequestered really threw me. Our justice system, imperfect as it is, requires a whole trial or admission of guilt before restricting someone’s freedom of movement by imprisonment. To think that a judge would do that to a jury of people, who are not criminals but citizens doing their civic duty, over a civil trial where only money and reputations are at stake rather than lives and years of confinement is outright laughable. Apparently forcing free citizens into hotel rooms for undefined periods of time is something judges should do whenever they feel like it, that’s not going to lead to gross abuses of power or anything.
Haha wow. Ohnoray is a special level of dumb
There’s a LOT of would-be lawyers on this site, apparently convinced that a civil case is just like all the episodes of Law and Order they’ve watched. And that appeals happen just because someone didn’t get the verdict they wanted, witness behaviour should have zero influence on a jury, and any juror who doesn’t rule as they did is either stupid or was influenced by social media. Or is a secret Depp fan. And they also assume the jurors were secretly combing through the stories online every night due to not being sequestered for six weeks, despite the fact such things never happen in any such lawsuits.
I’m pretty sure Law and Order fans understand Law and Order is criminal cases, not civil ones.
Not according to dozens of comments here, no.
Hey, thanks for the potshot. Classy.
Which part was a potshot?
Insulting me and mocking what I said in another thread without addressing it in our original conversation? Generally a dick move. I don’t know about the other “armchair lawyers” around here, but I at least was genuinely attempting to argue in good faith.
I’m sorry, I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you let me know where in another thread I didn’t address something you’d like me to feel free to point me to it. Also yes, “uMm, AckShuAlLY” is definitely good faith.
I’m the guy who argued the juror didn’t understand what words mean, based on his misuse of the word “abuse,” and his apparent failure to read the op-ed in question in the context in which it was written….and I *was* attempting to argue in good faith, before you started acting like a condescending asshat.
Oh I didn’t answer that? Sorry. I don’t see that comment just now, but as I remember you didn’t address it to me so that’s why I didn’t respond to it in-thread. If I happen upon it again I’ll try to say something to your satisfaction.As for being a condescending asshat, again, we don’t have to get into who was condescending first, but if we are, I’m pretty sure it was you with your “I guess you don’t understand about problems in the legal system” bullshit, or whatever the fuck you said.
“As for being a condescending asshat, again, we don’t have to get into who was condescending first, but if we are, I’m pretty sure it was you with your “I guess you don’t understand about problems in the legal system” bullshit, or whatever the fuck you said.”lol, sorry, wrong commenter. I believe you’re referring to Yellowfoot.
No you weren’t. Shut the fuck up.
You deserve to be insulted.
Literally everything you say and do is mockable
Yeah he absolutely owned your dumb ass
I have no position on the verdict, or Heard’s/Depp’s status as an abuser, or whether this juror made the right decision or not. And I acknowledge that both women and men have been the victims of miscarriages of justice before due to the perception of their behavior by amateurs, so it is not necessarily a good barometer of a person’s guilt.
But yeah, I’m with you. As rough as it is to acknowledge, I can 100% understand what this guy means when he says that Heard’s demeanor is off-putting. I’ve been trying to pinpoint exactly what it is, and I still can’t quite get it, but I keep thinking of the bit in Mindhunter where they’re discussing a suspect who keeps crying whenever they try to ask him questions: ‘It didn’t feel vulnerable, it felt hostile.’ It feels as though she’s trying to provoke a response rather than just lay things out, and her rhythms/intonations feel like a performance rather than natural speech.
It’s not an issue for me that he found her behavior off-putting, but the language he uses is very telling. She’s too emotional, so not trustworthy, wheras Depp is stable, thus trustworthy. It’s a few notches away from “don’t trust those crazy women.”
I don’t think the language he uses is telling within the context of what we’re discussing here. As I mentioned in my own post, I also get the same vibe from Heard, but if you pressed me to answer what exactly it was about her behavior that gives me this feeling, I don’t think I could answer properly. The fact that this guy’s given an inadequate example doesn’t really affect the thrust of what he was saying since millions of people – including myself, and a friend of mine who is a female domestic abuse victim – got the same vibe from her. I’d also add: you mentioned above not having watched the trial. If you haven’t, I can understand why you’d think he’s saying: ‘women be crazy’ or whatever. But the effect Heard seems to have on people is not down to one single thing, it’s a kind of nebulous cluster of lots of different things that on their own don’t mean much. But if you watch Heard’s testimony, you might understand why someone might grope for this as a potential explanation (even if it’s not the whole story).I would agree, though, that this is not on its own a reason to find her guilty.
I think this comment from the juror is pretty specific. “It didn’t come across as believable,” he said. “It seemed like she was able to flip the switch on her emotions. She would answer one question and she would be crying and two seconds later she would turn ice cold. It didn’t seem natural.” He gives some other specifics that they considered in this longer article. https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/juror-johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-speaks-85432281And there are many, many female abuse survivors, as well as male abuse survivors, who don’t believe a word she said and are furious that she’s stealing their stories for her own gain. If you’re going to take the time to post comments here, maybe take the time to read comments from people who have watched the trial and looked at evidence, if you don’t want to watch the trial or look at evidence for yourself. A lot of people who have paid closer attention, many of us because we’ve been abused, are posting on YouTube, where there’s more information and more informed discussions. It’s actually a very supportive space for abuse survivors. Yes, some channels have clickbait, but there are attorneys and a psychologist who have informative videos and comments from viewers that are worth reading.
He didn’t say she was too emotional. He said her behavior didn’t match with how someone would behave if they were truly crying/sobbing; she switched quickly between crying and not, and there were never tears (though she used a kleenex and seemed to be pretending to wipe away tears at times). I think if she had truly cried and sobbed in a way that fit with what she was saying, it wouldn’t have been an issue. And the word “stable” to describe Depp doesn’t suggest to me that it’s because he was calm, as much as he was more consistent. Heard’s demeanor also changed markedly after the 1 week break. It seemed clear she had seen the Tik Toks and memes (which I think are childish and mean) and toned it down, which also suggests her sobbing wasn’t real; it’s not something that can be turned on and off at will. I’m female, btw, feminist, and not a fan of sexist stereotypes like “crazy woman.” I just don’t think that’s what was going on here.
Having watched almost all of the trial and listened to more evidence available online, I believe strongly that she seemed unnatural because she was lying, and the only way she could have seemed natural would be for her to tell the truth. A psychologist has put a few videos on YouTube commenting on this case, and one of her nutshell points is, “Narcissists lie till they die.” I can’t believe AH and her lawyers ever openly discussed that she was lying, or that she’s ever admitted it to anyone (except maybe her sister). She displays so many signs of narcissism, plenty of people online (myself included) felt she was probably angry at her attorneys when things weren’t going well for her, and she was most likely trying to call the shots re: her legal strategy. I think her lawyers have been in a difficult position.
I don’t need to watch a trial to read Heard’s op-ed and understand what it says and doesn’t says. That’s basic reading comprehension. She refers to abuse that happens before she met Depp, she’s super vague on all details, and she only points to Depp in saying she became a public figure representing abuse. Which is true, whether you want to deny it or not. After she came forward previously/divorced Depp, she started getting press, and people started tearing her down for hurting the image of an actor they loved.
Even if everything she said was BS… the op-ed did not defame Depp.
Well, if you can decide questions of fact and law without listening to the evidence, then that’s definitely a skill! I truly hope you find a use for it somewhere. I hope that use is outside a jury box, but I do hope you find a use for it nonetheless.
I don’t need to watch a trial to read Heard’s op-ed and understand what it says and doesn’t saysYes, you don’t need to actually read, learn, and understand in detail what actually happened. I’m just going to form a bias and opinion based on mostly reading biased, opinionated stuff on the web, and form a judgement and be a know it all that I will push upon others whether its accurate or not.Yeah buddy, that’s not reading comprehension, that’s just plain ole’ ignorance. And what’s funny is that if a Republican said something like this, you’d be screaming at how they’re so wrong to act this way.
She said while she was testifying that she wrote the op-ed about Depp. That was later in the trial, after she had said it wasn’t about him. She said it was about him when she was being questioned by his team and was upset, so it slipped out. These types of inconsistencies are a big part of why she didn’t seem credible. I didn’t see this part of the testimony but heard legal commentators say there was testimony that she wanted to put more details about him in the op-ed and was advised not to. In her recent interview, she again said it wasn’t about him. The other piece about defamation is that she doesn’t have any credible evidence that he abused her, and there is credible evidence that she repeatedly abused him verbally and physically. This is not the typical MeToo claim.
The jury disagrees with you as does objective reality
Agree, there’s so much snark and sarcasm here about important issues. I appreciate your comments and willingness to admit when you don’t have all the information. I watched almost the whole trial, am not a lawyer but watched a stream with an attorney commenting and answering questions about the process. There is a lot of misinformation in this comment section. Sad because the trial and a lot of evidence are available online for people to just see with their own eyes and hear for themselves, which some clearly are not doing before they post. What’s up with that? There’s such a disconnect between what actually happened and how it’s being filtered by the media.
“That’s not how it works” is not the clever comeback that you and ElectricSheep seem to think it is.I can see being frustrated by non-experts weighing in using your professional jargon. But an awful lot of you and Sheep’s posting is shit like “She shouldn’t have been so clearly acting”, which is a judgment on her behavior (“should”) and kind of fucking aggravating in its own right as a fucking armchair psychologist. Do YOU know how trauma victims “act”? You want to engage about the merits, fine. You want to argue the legal jargon, fine. But you both keep leaning into shit that maybe you shouldn’t.
Exactly. It’s sad/pathetic
Aren’t they though? Juries are also made up of lay-people with no legal training (generally). They’re given instructions, yeah, but they’re also not legal scholars or experts in the subject of the case (again, generally).
Yes, which is the whole point of lawyers, prosecution, and etc. To pick, educate, and persuade these laypeople what and how to think, and do it in their favor, and Amber’s team and Amber herself failed to properly do that and why she lost.
What you AVClub commenters think and feel about that is irrelevant to how this works and demonstrates exactly what ElectricSheep and I are saying in how none of you understand how court cases work.
My commentary is that you make yourself sound silly.
She lost. Deal with it, dude.
He’s not going to see this bro
Gosh, I hope not. I haven’t even washed my hair today!
Nothing you’ve ever done or said matters to anyone
I mean, yeah, again, when you pull out a couple of sentences and leave out the entire context of what I said I can see how an intellectually dishonest person could convince themselves of that.
Cool. Your opinion doesn’t matter
Right and you and your dumb fucking opinions don’t matter
There’s an entire industry dedicated to training people for the witness stand. You can see it as being told to act on the stand, sure. But that industry exists for a reason. It does make a difference.
You’re a dumb piece of shit
You said “Her lawyer should have better trained her on how to behave on the stand, and she should have had someone keeping an eye on the jury’s reactions to her to adjust as necessary.”Changing her performance based on how juror’s react, just like she would do if she were on camera, is acting.
Yeah, what these legal experts are completely missing is how gross it is that the thing she “should” have done is the same thing that she “shouldn’t” have done because the jury apparently thought she was doing the thing she “should” have done. It all just reads as some fucking review of a stage play. It isn’t whether or not Heard was lying, it’s whether or not she’s a good fucking actress. SO gross.And they’re just sitting there, typing away in their law offices as if the letter of the law is what many of us are upset about. And not the chilling effect this verdict could have. For fuck’s sake, Kyle Rittenhouse specifically cited this verdict as a reason he’s considering suing Biden and several news outlets! Whether he does or not, the point is that assholes have seen this verdict as a victory for assholery. And in particular, douchebros have seen it as a loss for MeToo.But sure, blah blah legal jargon blah.
A lawyer “uMm, AckShuAlLY”-ing over questions of procedure and tut-tutting over laypeople’s ignorance thereof while refusing to comment on the merits of the case and its implications? What a surprise.
But I’m the OP. lol I literally said I wasn’t commenting on the merits of the case and actually wanted to just comment on the lawyering. Like I literally told you what this comment was about. I wasn’t responding to anyone or addressing my comment to anyone. You came onto this comment. You chose to engage with me on procedure. LOL I didn’t ask for engagement. You could have kept on scrolling if you didn’t want to talk about procedure. And now you’re blaming me because you chose to talk to me about procedure? WTF.
A dumb asshole with hot takes about something he doesn’t understand. And who, even after getting owned repeatedly, doesn’t have the common sense to just shut up. Wow surprising
You don’t even know what the words you’ve typed here mean
Well, first of all, I’m at home, not in my office. Second of all, I clearly said it would have been best if she didn’t try to put on a performance at all, and it seemed very clear to me that she was well-rehearsed and was performing, and that clearly didn’t go over well with the jury. I don’t know why you’re taking offense to that, but that’s fine.Third of all, this chilling effect only is a thing if you believe she was telling the truth and Depp was lying. You’re completely free to believe that, based on whatever portions of the trial you watched and based on whatever you read about it. And you’re clearly very convinced that you’re right, and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean there was a miscarriage of justice just because your opinion of the evidence was different, especially when you didn’t see it all.As for assholes using it as a victory for assholery, it’s not like there’s a shortage of those to choose from. Do you feel like assholes were on the run or something but for this verdict?As for blah blah blah legal jargon, I mean…lol…we’re talking about a trial. Legal jargon is kind of the whole point.
For fuck’s sake, Kyle Rittenhouse specifically cited this verdict as a
reason he’s considering suing Biden and several news outlets!Regardless of what you think of Amber Heard – and I have no opinion to offer on whether or not she was really abused – Kyle Rittenhouse’s innocence was unambiguous. Especially in a legal sense, and I’d say even in a moral sense.
Sure, he’s a conservative asshole now. But that’s hardly surprising when, at age 17, the majority of the online left were calling for his imprisonment/death/prison rape despite having no idea what actually went down in Kenosha, and in many cases not even realizing that the people he shot were white. He may well have a case.
The Rittenhouse thing is as much of an issue as the left allows it to be. If people hadn’t lost their minds over it in the first place, the conservatives wouldn’t be able to use it as a cudgel to beat us with. Complaining about it just solidifies their narrative that the left doesn’t care about facts and thinks the rule of law should be bent whenever it concerns someone we don’t like.
You’re an extremely unintelligent person
Everyone here knows you’re an anti intellectual asshat
Changing her performance based on how juror’s react, just like she would do if she were on camera, is acting.So? You want the jury to agree with you and believe you right? Juries are not internet commenters where they auto agree with you by going with the grain.
For fuck’s sake, the juror quoted in this article talks about how the jury thought she was ACTING. What kind of response is it to say, “Well, she should have acted better.”?To quote The Big Lebowski, “You’re not wrong, Walter. You’re just an asshole.”
You’re definitely free to call it that, but if I see that someone is uncomfortable with how I’m behaving towards them—maybe they think I’m standing too close, or don’t like that I touched their arm when I laughed, I’d stop doing that. It doesn’t mean I’m acting; it means that care about making other people comfortable. And I also said that her lawyer should have just told her to stop performing and just talk honestly like a regular person, which is the opposite of acting, so idk, you can cherry-pick from my comments if you like. I know what I said, as does anyone else reading it.
When reciting to millions of people my painful memories, I wouldn’t be smiling and cheerful or even passionate. What you describe is actually how Johnny Depp appeared while testifying. That’s why it seemed more natural.
It’s almost, as if, the lawyer you get depends on how much you can afford and maybe “international super star” Johnny Depp could afford better ones.
Yeah and also Amber heard got caught lying repeatedly on the stand. There’s also that
It’s obviously true that people with money can afford better lawyers, but I don’t think anyone can fairly argue that Amber Heard was poor, and moreover, her lawyer has excellent credentials! I was surprised when I read about them because she is apparently a crack lawyer who anyone, prior to this trial, would have been thrilled to have. She just really whiffed this one–whether that’s because she’s been secretly terrible this whole time or just had a hard time with bad facts is up for guess, but no one can argue that based on her credentials and past successes she was a bad choice without the benefit of hindsight. Nor was she cheap.
apparently Heard had to pay her legal fees with insurance money, so she had a weaker team than she did in UK where she spent a lot on a good team (probably didn’t think she’d have to do this again, who would).
Her lawyer this time wasn’t cheap though, and she had amazing credentials and past successes. Heard didn’t cheap out on a lawyer.
I’ve heard this comment a number of times, but I think she’s too narcissistic to accept any guidance from her attorneys about how to speak or behave in court. If they said anything to her that she perceived to be even slightly critical (even if it wasn’t), I expect she would have raged, like how her former assistant described. Speculation on my part, but I bet she thought she knew the best way to win her case, and this is really the first time she hasn’t won, considering the UK trial (though it was the Sun, not her, that was sued) and the court of public opinion for the past 6 years. I think that’s partly why she’s doing interviews now, too, thinking she’s going to make herself look good to the public, especially if she blames her attorneys for her loss (because narcissists always blame others). Again I admit this is my speculation based on patterns of narcissists, and we saw in the trial and in her recent interview that she doesn’t take responsibility for her abusive behavior or for losing in court.
I’m just boggled by comments here implying that if someone who has been through incredible trauma doesn’t tell her story in the exact right way she doesn’t deserve to be believed.
I’m not going to state my opinion on this trial, because I watched as little of it as possible.But to comment on your point, when I took the course for the Sexual Assault Forensic Exam (please don’t call it a “rape kit”, pet peeve of mine), one of the points they made is that many of the victims of sexual assault are not outwardly sympathetic… meaning, they’re not exactly pristine young women in white yoga pants, like the kind you tend to see in contraception advertisements. But that doesn’t matter. Their demeanor and appearance doesn’t make them less of a victim.
It’s awful that this has to be pointed out in the first place, but thanks and keep educating people.
Sooooooo brave
What boggles my mind is that she is proven abuser and yet some on here refuse to acknowledge it.
Throughout my life I’ve found that the vast majority of people who can turn the waterworks on/off at will are at best less than trustworthy, at worst they use that ability to get what they want whenever possible.
God get away from me
??I’m not sure what your problem is, I’m explaining that people absolutely use that kind of thing to manipulate others. I had more than one girlfriend who used that exact technique to emotionally manipulate me and many other people around them.
I said get away from me
Ah yes, Murry Chang’s very reliable anecdotal evidence.Get bent. You aren’t “explaining” shit. You’re projecting your personal bullshit onto a situation way more complicated than your fucking love life.You might as well just say “Bitches be crazy!” and get it the fuck over with.
Ten bucks says he thinks any woman who gets upset and cries about anything is just doing it to be “manipulative”
10 bucks you’re ugly and fat
“You might as well just say “Bitches be crazy!” and get it the fuck over with.”I mean that might be your position on things but literally all of my best friends are women so I wouldn’t say that all. Like, I’m talking about a few girlfriends I’ve had, ones who acted exactly like Amber Heard, and you think I mean all women. Why would you assume that? If someone says ‘I don’t like radishes’ do you think that means they don’t like food in general?
“You’re projecting your personal bullshit onto a situation way more complicated than your fucking love life.”No, I’m using my experience to form an opinion, as one does throughout life. You, however, are getting your internet outrage jollies by trying to make it look like you’re calling me out for bad behavior. Good job on that, get that dopamine hit buddy!
Lol. I’m confident that was your perception. It’s hilarious how much more this says about you than you think it does.
Ahh yes, the internet person who has never seen me, met me or heard me say anything in my life can make that judgement.Good job
You’re right, it wasn’t you — it was everyone else. Much easier to believe.
Where do I state or imply it’s ‘everyone’ and not ‘multiple girlfriends I have had’? Please, quote me. And how is someone threatening to kill themself because we’re talking about not being together anymore my fault?
Maybe you’re just in the wrong relationship.
No I’m not in any relationship thanks though!
this is recognitions. don’t bother. women never lie or are abusers themselves. they’re incapable.
Ooo you done stepped in it.
meh
Recognitions problem is that they’re a giant piece of sanctimonious shit.
Perhaps this is your first time dealing with recognitions. A person who gets into a fight with anyone based on nothing. He’s a spaz.
“I had more than one girlfriend who used that exact technique to emotionally manipulate me and many other people around them.” This is starting to sound like a “maybe you’re the baddie” problem.
No it’s a ‘I have bad taste in women’ problem that I’ve rectified by being single for 20 years.Thanks though.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen somebody tell on themselves as hard as Ol Murry. I feel really bad for all his exes.
Yes, having emotionally manipulative girlfriends was my fault.Good job.
You exemplify Heard’s melodrama so well.
God is with you.
lol. even in the context of this comments section’s disgusting double-standard parody of ‘leftism’ and ‘progressive’, you’re widely reviled here as an absolute contrarian dipshit. you ought to be quarantined from everyone with a basic sense of human compassion and morality forever.
Nobody wants to be near you. That’s why you post here
You, like this juror, are starting from the assumption that she was “turning the waterworks on and off” rather than, as is often the case in people who’ve been abused, shifting emotional presentation in a way you aren’t familiar with. Something that’s even more likely to happen when you have trained professionals deliberately trying to trip you up and shift your focus.
How do you know if someone can cry on demand, but has never chosen to mention it or do so in your presence?
Dude, I’m sorry she hurt you, but just go to therapy. Jesus.
It’s honestly sad how giddy you douchebags are. Congrats on all your bravery. You’re doing really important work
Yeah I had multiple girlfriends that would do the emotional manipulation thing whenever they wanted attention.More than one threatened to kill themself if I broke up with them. Then there was the one who broke up with me because I refused to beat her up like her last boyfriend, the one she had the PFA against. She went beck to him after she dumped me. And I’ve seen many women do that kind of shit to other guys too.I don’t need therapy though, I’ve been perfectly happy being single for 20 years. Thanks for your concern though!
Yep, that’s clear cut manipulation.
i’m just boggled by the belief from supposedly progressive people that woman are incapable of ever lying and male victims of abuse deserve no sympathy, but hey, guess i’m mentally older than ten and grew past playground gender wars.
No one cares what you think
So the jury thought Depp was a better actor?
Hey, he convinced the world that Edward Scissorhands was real!
For all the legal scholars weighing in on the legalese of the case, THIS is the essence of why some of us are disgusted by the verdict. Because CLEARLY, as proven by this juror, it wasn’t about the legalities. It was a fucking performance review of two actors.
God you’re stupid
And also because Heard was a damn liar.
Like, doesn’t this guy listen to murder podcasts? It’s always the “charming guy with a cool calm demeanor” who did it. Did the shit out of it.
I suppose it was only a matter of time . . .
What took him so long?!
“It was rigged, I’m the real winner”- Donald Trump- Amber Heard
Too bad for you the only parllels in this case to Trump (and actually literal overlap) is with Depp stans. I mean the Congressional GOP publicly celebrated it. You’re pretty dumb.
Interesting that you’ve conflated a rapist with a rape victim.
Well that’s a new one. Who did 45 rape now?
The country, for like four years
…you’re trolling, right?
Ivana Trump, for starters.
The country for four years!
Except she wasn’t a rape victim, just a liar.
Grow up.
everyone should go listen to all the recording of her, you will see she was not the victim..In one recording she admits to faking the black eye to get a restraining order because she was going to be evicted and her lawyer told her that was the only way she can stray
Source?
Get a real hobby.
Go touch grass.
It doesn’t really matter if she was the victim or not. She didn’t defame Depp in her op-ed, because she didn’t accuse him of abuse in her op-ed.
But she did, and she got caught!
OMG how is this still a thing. The damn trial was about defamation!!!!!! How is no one grasping that yet. Johnny’s team did not prove that Amber was even talking about him.
Yes they did
No they didn’t.
They irrefutably, undeniably did. As evidenced by the court ruling.
The jury and objective reality disagree with you. The jury found in his favor. By the only metric available, he successfully proved his case. You’re incorrect and an extremely unintelligent person
If they abused each other… then her statement in the Post was categorically true and not defamatory….even with that interpretation their finding makes no sense.
The full quote from the juror is that they didn’t believe he physically abused her, which was the crux of the defamation.
Here’s a link to the article she wrote and for which Depp sued her. You tell me where it actually says he physically abused her.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html
Specifically, these were the three statements that the jury decided defamed Depp:(1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” (2) “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” (3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”Now, it seems to me that this op-ed is about domestic abuse in general and the public backlash women face for accusing powerful men. Depp is never specifically accused, and in fact the few times Heard (obliquely) refers to her own abuse it seems to be from times prior to her relationship with Depp—that she faced abuse “from a young age,” and “before college.” Granted, my interpretation is based on understanding what words mean, which I’ve been indirectly informed is a very stupid and un-lawyerly standard to apply to jury deliberations.
I mean, none of it seems to me to come down to any kind of fucking facts, but rather a 7 person review of a stage play. (Sorry to curse, it’s not aimed at you at all, just the situation and the goddam “I’m a very smart lawyer, my law degree says I know everything” dorks who might be right but who are also missing the point of people’s ire) And in essence, as has been said by many others before me, this case came down to “Is Amber Heard a better actor than Johnny Depp?”. Or to be even more depressing, “Is Johnny Depp a MORE LIKEABLE actor than Amber Heard?” Cuz holy christ, has anyone actually seen Johnny in anything in the last 10+ years?
None of that states Depp physically abused her. In fact, none of it suggests anyone abused her, ever. It’s all about how people reacted to her saying she was abused. Even if she lied about being abused, her statements in the Op-Ed are categorically true.
I am not a lawyer but I am a writer. I understand what words mean. I know legal definitions of things twist actual meanings all the time, but there’s no way an intelligent person could read Heard’s Op-Ed and conclude she defamed Depp.
Ah, yes….the “you’re not intelligent because I’m a writer,” argument. Always impressive and effective.
You know, I would genuinely love if some of the “I really am very intelligent because I’m a lawyer” folks would help explain the law here instead of taking potshots at the plebs. Based on a layperson’s understanding of defamation and (I would argue) the commonsense interpretation of Heard’s op-ed, it sure seems like Depp didn’t have a case. Could you explain what we’re misinterpreting here? Elsewhere ElectricSheep mentioned something about defamation by implication—care to elaborate on that?
Heard admitted that the op-ed WAS about Depp in front of the jury, of course.
Your opinion doesn’t matter
I heard about people wanting to boycott Aquaman 2 unless they reshoot her scenes with a new actress. Lotta dudes out there hate women. I love that they think threatening everyone who worked on the film by wanting to see Amber Heard lynched, woof.
I love Bruce Campbell but there are Bruce fans “comedically” calling for him to replace Heard in Aquaman 2.Fucking troll dipshits.
You’re sooooooo brave
How’s your mom?
I bet being unfunny is one of the top 5 reasons you’re a failure.
Yes it is uncomfortable to hear someone describe the abuse they suffered. Seeing as the jury decided they were both abusive to each other, and that’s what the op-ed she wrote said, no, she was not lying and the jury obviously fucked up.
Except for the times she WAS lying in court of course, luckily there is plenty of video material to back that up, and a smart lawyer in Depp’s side that immediately catched on that when she did.
You have zero insight into any of this
“Hearing about this woman being raped and abused made me uncomfortable, and I really like that wacky pirate.”
“However the juror insists that the jury “followed the evidence,” and that those who did use social media sites “made a point not to talk about it.”Fuck this guy. Then why do you care who “looked” more believable or who made you “uncomfortable”. This is one of the biggest issues with the jury system. No matter how much you tell people that you should 100% just look at the evidence provided they will still judge demeanor with bias. I’ve gotten to do jury duty twice and the number of times I had to remind idiots that it doesn’t matter who you “feel” is guilty. Especially over lunches and recesses. Listen to the whole case. Look at the evidence. Favor physical evidence over testimony. Look at the letter of the law. Ask the judge for guidance if needed and do your jobs right. The thing about being on a jury is it kinda sucks and will make you feel like shit. I had to convict a homeless guy of trespassing because the CTA rent-a-cops are huge dicks. It sucked. But it wasn’t my job to make a political statement, it was my job to look at the facts and compare them to the law.
I’ve had jury duty once where the case I was on went to the jury…and it was kind of eye opening/defeating. With all of its faults, I do believe our system of justice is the best but boy oh boy. The people on my jury were absolute dolts. Listening to these people discuss the case (in the jury room) and just completely not understanding the judges instructions and taking what lawyers said as “evidence”. And it was a simple case, someone stole some checks out of the house that they were doing home repairs in. And there was one guy who refused to deliberate at the end of the day because he wanted to get out of work for one more day. He actually told us this in the jury room! I sent a note to the judge and his ass was sent home.But at the end of the day, justice was served and I believe it was done justly. But getting to that point was difficult to say the least.
Hearing stories like this and knowing how lawyers actively try to remove educated people from juries makes me convinced that, god forbid I ever find myself in that situation, I would almost certainly choose a bench trial. At least the judge will have a passable understanding of the legal system and the rules of evidence. I have absolutely no faith in the intelligence and critical thinking skills of the average American.
Yeah, that thought occurred to me as well. I’m not sure I want my “peers” deciding my fate!
back in high school law class, the teacher said at the beginning, if you’re guilty go for a jury trial and if you’re not guilty, go for judge only trial.
This
I will say, the last time I was in a jury pool, one of the other potential jurors was a criminal justice professor. It came out during the questioning that he had been the lead prosecutor’s advisor when he was an undergraduate. I was sure he would get excused. But he ended up on the jury.
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Literally none
Jurors are picked by weeding out the smart people for the people who don’t know anything. It’s the dumbest system.
I served on a jury once. I remember during the voir dire process, during a recess, I was hanging out in the hallway with a couple of other prospective jurors. And one of them was pissy about the fact that if we were chosen, we weren’t supposed to watch crime procedurals or any TV show about the law. She was sniping “What does that have to do with anything? As though they could stop us!” Super irritated, I turned to her and said “Can we just try—just this once—to do the really important duty the way we’re supposed to?” Like—the judge explained his reasoning for not watching those shows and it’s a sound one. Stop trying to cheat the system—do your homework. (She wasn’t chosen and the rest of the jurors were awesome. It was a really solid experience and I highly recommend jury duty.)
Sounds like one of those goddamn rural jurors. Fascists.
Probably a huge Kevin Grisham fan too.
Nice to see contemporary jurors are keeping up the long-running tradition of jurors being absolute morons.
Heard said. “… He’s a fantastic actor.”
Hope she didn’t say that under oath.
I’ve mostly avoided following this too, too closely, but this a defamation case. Watching that video, the juror’s statements make them sound completely uninformed as to what the legal definition of defamation is, and who the onus is on, which is a judges job to make sure they understand it. It makes zero sense to acknowledge there was abuse, even if you considered it bidirectional, and say one person’s account was defamatory.It’s more dumbfounding considering US law, where defamation has a very high bar, protected by the First, where conveying your own perceived experiences are protected. It’s a very chilling precedent. There was ample evidence of abuse apparent any way you look at it. And we have a male juror basically saying, I know Depp was abusive but I wasn’t convinced that he may have punched or slapped her (despite photographic evidence and independent testimony), cause like that’s the only thing you call abuse, right? That he found a woman crying in the “wrong way”, when his knowledge of how a person, a woman especially, may deal with trauma is obviously non-existent, and is especially telling.There is nothing, as far as I can see looking at the case now with evidence presented, that should’ve resulted in defamation. And, jesus christ, this jury. I’ve always argued that any jury, including civil cases, should be sequestered. We can afford it. Instead you get a jury that admits they were looking at social media the whole time.
Everything you’ve written here is wrong and next level stupid. I’m sorry you aren’t aware how wildly uninformed you are about every single aspect of this.
I can only speak from my own experiences, but:
1. I can’t tell if this is a situation where this juror has witnessed other abuse victims crying and it felt different to them, or if this person is a cynic who believes crying as a whole is “an irrational response to being upset” and “crying is never sincere”. I’ve unfortunately met people who disregard all emotional vulnerability, like crying and apologizing, as “please pity me and get me out of trouble” instead of considering whether the person might genuinely feel bad about what they did.
2. I do think a couple can be “mutually abusive” depending on the circumstances. My own parents take turns lashing out at each other, unprompted, and at least from my POV, no one is consistently “the justified one”.
Such a pile of BS. If he thniks they were abusive to each other, then she wasn’t guilty. He claims they followed the evidence (not that she got a chance to show all her evidence…) but his response is all about emotion and her not being properly performative. Which is again, just such fucking bullshit.
They were both spoiled brats and weirdos. I don’t see either of them coming off good here. Don’t know why Depp has so much support. I look the smirk he has on his face in that commercial they just allowed on air again. I worry that the next lady to accuse a powerful man of abuse will be called another Amber Heard.